Met. Jonah of the OCA on American jurisdictional unity

[Michael G]

Moscow and other churches that recognize the OCA's autocephalous status will be present, won't they?

Yes, Moscow not only recognizes the OCA's Autocephaly, they granted it in 1970. Still, to have a conference dealing with Orthodoxy in North America and not invite North American bishops is a slap in the face of North American Orthodox Christians. And people wonder why I have very little respect for the EP.

 

[cobweb]

I agree 100000000% with Met. Jonah, but I would almost rather be united under the EP than persist in the political mess we have now.

I love being in the OCA and would absolutely hate for that to happen, but something needs to be done. There is too much in-fighting. We should be much more charitible with one another on a parish level (and we are definitely not.. at least where I live). Maybe if we could all get along it would be easier for the bishops to do so.

 

[GreekGrl]

"Originally Posted by Michael the Iconographer
Yes, Moscow not only recognizes the OCA's Autocephaly, they granted it in 1970. Still, to have a conference dealing with Orthodoxy in North America and not invite North American bishops"


None of the North American Bishops were invited to attend?

 

[Joshua G.]

I could not disagree with you more. Metropolitan JONAH said nothing uncharitable, and we should not assume he did. His apology was not a political game as you would sadly mischaracterize this to require. It was a shepherd tending his flock, and and a humble fellow-shepherd sensitive to the needs of his fellow shepherds and their flocks. Both his original words, and his apology were selfless and charitable. I find it a true shame you would assume that one or the other must have been less than so.

Proto, My point was not to accuse the Metropolitan of anything. I was only taking him at his word. He said that he apologizes for some uncharitable things he said (I don't even have an opinion as to what exactly that was, I bearly remember the speech). Orthodoxy suggested that really what he was doing was protecting the flock. My point is regardless of what he was "really" doing, I believe he is a sincere man (from anything I can tell) and that he wouldn't say apologize insincerely. An insinsere apology would be my asking you to forgive me for doing X to you while I (sercretly) believe that I never did X or that X was justified. THAT would be a game of polity or politics. A sincere apology would be my saying sorry for X and truly regretting having done X believing it was an unjustified action. The latter takes the will of a truly humble man and I believe that is what Metropolitan Jonah is.

The Metropolitan asked the EP for forgiveness for something he had done. I feel quite confident that the Metropolitan did this because he truly regretted any offense he committed against the EP and, by his own words, regrets something he said (I don't knwo what that is, again, I am just taking the man at his word)... otherwise the apology would be empty.

You're not offended by anything I said ProtoE, but by what you percieved me as having said. I don't think that he was playing a game of politics, and I said that. It was sincere, it was not a political move and it should be left at that. That was my entire point.

ORTHODOXY USA:
It seems you took my post more personally that I intended. And I can see why. I really was just using you as an example of what all of us do. I've done it before in forums. The fact is, we all know someone who we feel or know to be "in the know". Like, "I spoke to my priest who is good friends with the bishop and he says..." or "I've been following this closely, reading articles, keeping up in the latest news and parish closings, and so on. It's evident that..." What you say or know to be true MAY indeed be true. However, regardless of all of the little behind-the-scenes facts (giving insight into the greater intentions of this or that bishop) that you or I may "know", you and I cannot possibly understand the BIG picture. We just can't until we are in the shoes of the Bishops of those who directly aid him in actual decision-making. And NONE of us are charged with making those decisions nor are we held accountable for them.

It's a different story with our government because in a democracy we are, supposedly, the ones who rule and we elect representives. So, it is totally our business to make educated guesses about the intentions of our polititians when something smells. We may be wrong in the end, but that's the hard part about living in a democracy (it's a LOT of accountability in the end.. which should kind of scare us spiritually speaking). Fortunately, the Church is not a democracy, but a theocracy and God has charged certain men with making administrative decisions... not us. Surely we are used to informed... but they are more than layity in special robes. This is good... you and I don't have to concern ourselves with the "behind the scenes". THEY DO. We don't have to look for the "writing on the wall". They do. We will never have to answer for the US not having on Jurisdiction except in terms of us holding grudges against our brothers and sisters in other jurisdictions (adn I don't think any of us here in TAW do that). THEY WILL (according to God's will).

We are charged with obeying our bishops and loving and respecting ALL bishops. And regardless of how my Patriarch or your Metropolitan may feel about the EP, that isn't ours to worry about. Neither of us are being asked by our bishops to assume ANYTHING about any bishop. Just to go to Church, fast and love and pray for all of them (In the antiochian prayerbook it says something like "Lord, be mindful of Patriarch/Metropolitan ____, bishop ____ and all the bishops of the Orthodox" (and I know you personally have no problem with this, I am just pointing out this truth since it is pertinent). Is this not a blessing?

Joshua

 

[Anhelyna]

sadly I fear the dust is not yet settled.

I came across this today

Koinonia: METROPOLIS OF SAN FRANCISCO: Letter from Metropolitan Gerasimos

 

[E.C.]

Yes, Moscow not only recognizes the OCA's Autocephaly, they granted it in 1970. Still, to have a conference dealing with Orthodoxy in North America and not invite North American bishops is a slap in the face of North American Orthodox Christians. And people wonder why I have very little respect for the EP.

I concur that it is a slap on the face, but I can not share the disrespect sentiment towards the EP no matter how much I find myself in disbelief over this whole mess. The EP is still a bishop.

The fact of the matter is this: Orthodoxy is growing in North America. It is not because all the Greeks, Slavs, Arabs and Romanians are having fifty plus kids in their families, but because Americans who have histories not of Orthodoxy, but of Protestantism, Catholicism and non-Christian religions are becoming Orthodox.

Fr. Seraphim Rose, of blessed memory, was a Buddhist and became Orthodox. Fr. James Bernstein, whose parish is less than fifty miles from my own, was an Orthodox Jew. A man in our choir was supposed to be some prophet when he was Mormon before becoming Orthodox. Another person in my parish was, from what I've heard, dabbling with neo-paganism before becoming Orthodox. We have five priests at our parish. One was Pentecostal, two were Anglican, one was part of a fake-odox cult and the fifth was born and raised Orthodox. Most of our parish comes from non-Orthodox backgrounds. I would say that about thirty people in our parish of about 150 are originally from the "Old Country" we hear so much about. I would say about half of the kids (ages less than one to seventeen) in our parish are cradles whose parents were converts. We had a reader who is part Native Alaskan who was raised Orthodox, went Protestant and reverted back to Orthodoxy.

Most of the blogs of Orthodox laity and/or clergy are converts. Look at all of the bishops in North America. How many of them are converts? What were they before they were Orthodox? How many of them are not converts?


Orthodoxy in America is not the Greek diaspora. It is not the Slavic diaspora. It is not the Romanian diaspora. It is not the Arab diaspora. Those who comprise of the diaspora are a part of Orthodoxy in America, but they are not the whole of Orthodoxy in America. The "Orthodox-ness" of America is not judged solely on the diaspora, but on how we all live our faith regardless of where we came from, who our ancestors were or where they came from. We are all support beams of the Church in America regardless of where we came from or what language is our mother tongue. The Church in America is not solely the diaspora. The Church of America is comprised of both people who are themselves diaspora and converts who are not diaspora. Thus, the Church in America is held by all Orthodox on this continent. Any, in my opinion, who forget or neglect any part of the Church here might as well go Muslim or Eastern Catholic by how much they misconceive Orthodoxy in America.


What I see from the "Old Country" is a neglect of those who are not the diaspora. What I see from some of us in the "New World" is a neglect of those who are from the "Old Country" who brought us this great faith of Orthodoxy. Like Metropolitan Jonah said, "There is an American Orthodox Church. Leave it alone".
In my not so humble opinion, that would be best because the reality of it is this: most of the Orthodox in America are not part of some diaspora or are the decendents of those who were part of a diaspora. The reality of it is this: people are becoming Orthodox who are not Greek, Arab, Romanian or Slavic. People are becoming Orthodox who were once Jews, Protestants, Roman Catholics, neo-pagans, Buddhists, Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, Hindus, Muslims or part of a cult or had no faith in anything at all. That is reality. The face of Orthodoxy in America is mostly made up of those who converted to Orthdoxy. From what I am seeing, that part of the face of Orthodoxy in America is being cast aside because it is not Greek, Slavic or any of that. That is the greatest travesty of all.

If the Orthodox Christian faith were exclusive to only a select group of people, than I only know of one person who would be Orthodox: Fr. James Bernstein because he was Jewish. If the Orthodox Christian faith were exclusive to only a select group of people, then we would all still be pagans or became Muslims.

 

[Michael G]

E.C. maybe you are right. Disrespect might not be the proper course of action toward the EP on my behalf, but at the same time I am sure you can understand why I have the sentiment of not really giving a care what he says. I agree with His Beatitude JONAH, the old world just needs to leave North America ALONE!

 

[Macarius]

I agree 100% with you, EC.

But my question is this:

IF the synod to meet in June decides that, for the sake of unity, we are to shift into a single jurisdiction overseen by the EP BUT it also avoids any papal-esque language, would it make us any less Orthodox? Wouldn't it still be the faith?

In other words, this isn't relevant to US as LAYMEN. I can't imagine a scenario (except the EP suddenly making himself out to be a pope, in which case he'd be pretty isolated in the Orthodox world, because Moscow and Antioch wouldn't follow), in which this would justify a schism; and ultimately, that means were still taking communion from the same chalice.

We have to trust the Holy Spirit in this, and pray for His guidance. Human beings give us no hope at all. All our hope and our loyalty is in God. If the worst cross we have to bear is a few dollars going to the EP, well, God has asked far worse things from Christians than that.

Forgive me,
Macarius

 

[Macarius]

E.C. may you are right. Disrespect might not be the proper course of action toward the EP on my behalf, but at the same time I am sure you can understand why I have the sentiment of not really giving a care what he says. I agree with His Beatitude JONAH, the old world just needs to leave North America ALONE!

Michael, we should always care for the words of our fellow Orthodox Christians. Please remember that we are of one body with the EP, and of the same Spirit. Disagreements should not be a warrant for strong, passionate reactions; but rather sober self-reflection and Christian love rooted in humility regardless of what the other does. We both know that this is exactly what Met Jonah would ask of us.

I agree with your perspective, and I disagree with what some of the Greeks have been saying, but we can't allow that to become damaging to our souls because that is the sole thing for which we are responsible. Until a real and pragmatic choice becomes necessary (i.e. if there is a schism), what good does all this antagonism towards the EP do for us? How does that promote Christian unity, or even more important, our own spiritual health?

I had the same reaction as you when I first read the speech of the priest from the Phanar. It sounded heretical, and I was angry. But isn't that precisely the sort of "old man" reaction we're supposed to fight against?

Forgive me,
Macarius

 

[E.C.]

I agree 100% with you, EC.

But my question is this:

IF the synod to meet in June decides that, for the sake of unity, we are to shift into a single jurisdiction overseen by the EP BUT it also avoids any papal-esque language, would it make us any less Orthodox? Wouldn't it still be the faith?

It would, but at the same time I would feel that same feeling of oppression one of my ancestors felt when he sighed up with the Virginia Militia during the Revolutionary War.

In other words, this isn't relevant to US as LAYMEN. I can't imagine a scenario (except the EP suddenly making himself out to be a pope, in which case he'd be pretty isolated in the Orthodox world, because Moscow and Antioch wouldn't follow), in which this would justify a schism; and ultimately, that means were still taking communion from the same chalice.

We have to trust the Holy Spirit in this, and pray for His guidance. Human beings give us no hope at all. All our hope and our loyalty is in God. If the worst cross we have to bear is a few dollars going to the EP, well, God has asked far worse things from Christians than that.

Forgive me,
Macarius

If Holy Resurrection can keep the idiosyncrasies we have as Holy Resurrection and not have other idiosyncrasies pushed upon because they are not "Greek" or whatever, than I would hope I'd be able to stay happy.

What concerns me most is how June will play out. None of the North American bishops are invited and I don't recall His All-Holiness being the Archbishop of GOARCH before becoming His-All Holiness or His Holiness Ignatius IV being Metropolitan of the Antiochian Archdiocese in America before becoming His Holiness.

The only primate that I know of post Bolshevik Revolution who was a bishop in North America was His-All Holiness Athenagoras. The point I'm making is that other then official visits, none of the primates have been to North America so the really, in my opinion, can not know how Orthodoxy in America is.

You are right in that as laymen it does not effect us. The exceptions would be if something were imposed upon such as the language must be this language and not that language. Or if the deacon doors had to be moved in the Greek style because it is not how the EP has his deacon doors. As an acolyte, that last one throws me off more than anyone would think!

 

[cobweb]

You are right in that as laymen it does not effect us. The exceptions would be if something were imposed upon such as the language must be this language and not that language. Or if the deacon doors had to be moved in the Greek style because it is not how the EP has his deacon doors. As an acolyte, that last one throws me off more than anyone would think!

That is my concern as well. Will we keep our English DL? Will we have to adopt byzantine chant for our hymns?

We don't even have an iconostasis (mission parish - tiny 2 bedroom house)

 

[E.C.]

I agree 100% with you, EC.

But my question is this:

IF the synod to meet in June decides that, for the sake of unity, we are to shift into a single jurisdiction overseen by the EP BUT it also avoids any papal-esque language, would it make us any less Orthodox? Wouldn't it still be the faith?

I forgot to add one thing here.

If Orthodoxy in America was no longer referred to as a "diaspora", than I would hope I would be able to swallow my pride and just grin and bear it.

If the use of "diaspora" remained, I do not think I would be able to accept it. I am not Greek, Ukrainian or Carpatho-Rusyn and none of my ancestors were either. If "diaspora" remained, I could not accept it because in accepting I would be saying that I am Greek, Ukrainian or Carpatho-Rusyn which would be complete dishonest because I am none of those.

Saying that I am part of some diaspora when I am not is something I could never do. I've said my lies and done my dishonest things in my life and I pray God will forgive me for them, but I am not part of a diaspora. I never have been and I hope I shall never be.

 

[Michael G]

I forgot to add one thing here.

If Orthodoxy in America was no longer referred to as a "diaspora", than I would hope I would be able to swallow my pride and just grin and bear it.

If the use of "diaspora" remained, I do not think I would be able to accept it. I am not Greek, Ukrainian or Carpatho-Rusyn and none of my ancestors were either. If "diaspora" remained, I could not accept it because in accepting I would be saying that I am Greek, Ukrainian or Carpatho-Rusyn which would be complete dishonest because I am none of those.

Saying that I am part of some diaspora when I am not is something I could never do. I've said my lies and done my dishonest things in my life and I pray God will forgive me for them, but I am not part of a diaspora. I never have been and I hope I shall never be.

Precisely! I would rep you 100 times for that post if I could!

 

[Macarius]

I forgot to add one thing here.

If Orthodoxy in America was no longer referred to as a "diaspora", than I would hope I would be able to swallow my pride and just grin and bear it.

If the use of "diaspora" remained, I do not think I would be able to accept it. I am not Greek, Ukrainian or Carpatho-Rusyn and none of my ancestors were either. If "diaspora" remained, I could not accept it because in accepting I would be saying that I am Greek, Ukrainian or Carpatho-Rusyn which would be complete dishonest because I am none of those.

Saying that I am part of some diaspora when I am not is something I could never do. I've said my lies and done my dishonest things in my life and I pray God will forgive me for them, but I am not part of a diaspora. I never have been and I hope I shall never be.

What if the term diaspora were defined as the priest from the Phanar defined it in is speech? He didn't talk about it as an immigrant community, but rather as "any Orthodox community outside an autocephalous Orthodox national Church" (to paraphrase, he actually said "outside traditional Orthodox countries," but based on the theology he argued later in the speech, he funcationally meant it the way I paraphrased it).

I agree that this robs those communities of the language of mission which is so critical - but it says nothing of ethnicity or ethnic heritage; its a term of geography and age-of-the-local-community, not immigration or genetic background.

In Christ,
Macarius

PS: what if the term diaspora were not used, but not specifically denied?
PSS: how would the use of the term of diaspora comrpomise the fact that Orthodoxy is still the continuation of the apostolic tradition and church?

 

[Joshua G.]

E.C. maybe you are right. Disrespect might not be the proper course of action toward the EP on my behalf, but at the same time I am sure you can understand why I have the sentiment of not really giving a care what he says. I agree with His Beatitude JONAH, the old world just needs to leave North America ALONE!

Good stuff.

 

[Joshua G.]

When I read EC's, I thought "Amen!" (although I wasn't sure how it would have anything to do with swollowing pride)

But then I read Macarius' post and realized that the word is used in ways I hadn't realized. It does of course beg the whole OCA question that this entire debate surrounded by so doesn't it get us any further... lol. But, that said, it's still a valid point to make for the sake of clarity. Thanks Macarius.

Joshua

 

[E.C.]

What if the term diaspora were defined as the priest from the Phanar defined it in is speech? He didn't talk about it as an immigrant community, but rather as "any Orthodox community outside an autocephalous Orthodox national Church" (to paraphrase, he actually said "outside traditional Orthodox countries," but based on the theology he argued later in the speech, he funcationally meant it the way I paraphrased it).

The thing here, is that there is an autocephalous Orthodox Church.

Even then, how can we define 'traditional'? Alaska was part of Russia in the late 18th century. Most of the Natives whom the Russians encountered became Orthodox and there are about four saints who had a lot to do with Alaska (two were martyred). Texts were translated into Alaskan languages. Keeping all this in mind, can Alaska fall under the heading of "traditional Orthodox" area or not?

I agree that this robs those communities of the language of mission which is so critical - but it says nothing of ethnicity or ethnic heritage; its a term of geography and age-of-the-local-community, not immigration or genetic background.

In Christ,
Macarius

PS: what if the term diaspora were not used, but not specifically denied?
PSS: how would the use of the term of diaspora comrpomise the fact that Orthodoxy is still the continuation of the apostolic tradition and church?

If diaspora were not used, I would feel a lot better.

The way I see it is that a use or non use of diaspora does not compromise Orthodoxy, but to equate an ethnic diaspora to Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy to said ethnic diaspora is heresy. In that way, Orthodoxy is compromised because it is no longer "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic", but just "One Holy <insert ethnic diaspora here> and Apostolic". Even the Apostolic part could be argued as lost because I highly doubt the Apostles were of said certain ethnic diaspora.

 

[fuerein]

My problem with defining diaspora differently than the commonly known definition and trying to redefine it as "any church outside traditional orthodox countries" or however he stated it is that the term is far too vague at that point. With that definition any kind of mission is going to be a "diaspora" because the the mission is necessarily going to be outside traditional orthodox lands. Further at what point does a area in "diaspora" become no longer "diaspora"? What is the criteria for deciding that a non-traditional orthodox land has become sufficiently orthodox to qualify as now being "traditionally orthodox"? Essentially by defining it thus they are able to keep everyone not in the so-called "traditional orthodox lands" in the limbo-esque "diaspora" status indefinitely.

 

[Macarius]

The thing here, is that there is an autocephalous Orthodox Church.

That is, obviously, the heart of the issue. Clearly I agree that there is (since we attend an OCA parish) - and as such I don't consider even the Phanar's definition of "diaspora" as appropriate - my question was, if this changes (if the synod demands or requests a change), then what?

Even then, how can we define 'traditional'? Alaska was part of Russia in the late 18th century. Most of the Natives whom the Russians encountered became Orthodox and there are about four saints who had a lot to do with Alaska (two were martyred). Texts were translated into Alaskan languages. Keeping all this in mind, can Alaska fall under the heading of "traditional Orthodox" area or not?

Well, Alaska is part of the OCA; I assume it would revert to the Russian Patriarchate. But this is an interesting question - I just don't think it is relevant to the heart of the issue I was trying to bring up:

This is a question of organization and jurisdiction, not faith. If the faith is the same, then the faith is Orthodox, and there is no other faith which I can confess. I will fight in so much as God calls me to (in so much as He allows) to have us recognized as non-diaspora and properly autocephalous (functionally, we are, as we just elected our own hierarch), but I will not schism over a non-faith issue. Otherwise, we're no different than the Old Calanderists, we just have different pet-peeves.

If diaspora were not used, I would feel a lot better.

Likewise. In fact, I STRONLGY object to the term, and consider it to be inaccurate. But it doesn't, as currently used by the Phanar (an unusual and technical definition, I grant) compromise the Catholicity of the faith NOR the central teachings and practices of the Church. As such, it isn't heresy - just annoyingly inaccurate and offensive.

Using terminology offensive to me hardly makes someone a heretic.

The way I see it is that a use or non use of diaspora does not compromise Orthodoxy, but to equate an ethnic diaspora to Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy to said ethnic diaspora is heresy.

I agree that to un-catholicize the faith would contradict the intentions of the Council of Jerusalem and would be borderline heretical, but that ISN'T how the Phanar has used the word, and they've been pretty consistent on it.

Schism should NEVER be something WE initiate - and it should NEVER be something WE initiate at all (unless the bishops wholesale reject the faith). Basically, EC, I trust our priests and Bi. Benjamin. I know his faith. I'm not leaving them, regardless of what hierarchs have nominal leadership of the synod / arch-diocese / whatever-of-north-america.

We're getting WAY ahead of ourselves in thinking this of a schism-worthy issue. It just ISN'T at that point yet, or we aren't true obedient sons and daughters of the church. No one has made themsleves Pope, or denied the conciliar process, or denied the incarnation, or denied the catholicity of the faith, or ANY of those Creedal issues. We need to relax, practice dispassion, and have faith in the Holy Spirit, remembering that we are to follow the faith, not determine it.

Forgive me,
Macarius

 

[Macarius]

My problem with defining diaspora differently than the commonly known definition and trying to redefine it as "any church outside traditional orthodox countries" or however he stated it is that the term is far too vague at that point. With that definition any kind of mission is going to be a "diaspora" because the the mission is necessarily going to be outside traditional orthodox lands. Further at what point does a area in "diaspora" become no longer "diaspora"? What is the criteria for deciding that a non-traditional orthodox land has become sufficiently orthodox to qualify as now being "traditionally orthodox"? Essentially by defining it thus they are able to keep everyone not in the so-called "traditional orthodox lands" in the limbo-esque "diaspora" status indefinitely.

Though I disagree with it, the Phanar DOES have a clearly defined answer for these questions:

According to the Phanar...

• Yes, any mission is in diaspora. Taking the word apart, dia means "out from" and spora refers to "spores" or "seeds." This seems to be the meaning given to it by the Phanar.
• It becomes non-diaspora when the EP grants it autocephaly. Concievably, an ecumenical council could also do this, being above the EP in rights (and having granted the EP its canon 28 powers, as this interpretation depends on them).
• It would be declared non-diaspora when the EP felt it was mature enough. It is possible this would be decided for baseless reasons like money or some such thing, but ALL offices and powers of the Church can be abused this way, so it doesn't provide sufficient reason to abandon the idea.

Again, sorry to play opposing advocate (I won't use the common idiom for that for obvious reasons), but I really think that as much as this irks us and offends us, it A) hasn't happened yet and B) doesn't impact Orthodoxy at its core, but is a peripheral issue that we should fight, but not schism over.

Forgive me,
Macarius