Met. Jonah of the OCA on American jurisdictional unity

[EricTheRed]

The EPs approach to this saddens me, I hate to see this kinda of conflict within the Church but from what I can tell he has brought this on himself.

I know America is his bread and butter because of the lack of faithful in Turkey..but he has to see this is not healthy for the Church

 

[Joshua G.]

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.

This is how I understand it.

 

[Joshua G.]

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.

 

[Joshua G.]

For unity to happen, however, I think the different 'jurisdictions' (they won't be jurisdictions then, but for lack of a better word) or heritages will not be cool with micromanagement and making sure we use trespassers or debtors is not an issue that needs to be dealt with. I recommended wording might be good, but we don't need the Vatican II approach lol.

Joshua

 

[EricTheRed]

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.

 

[Michael G]

That's a very secular approach.

Last I checked the EP is a bishop and is SUPPOSED to be an example to the rest of the Church on how one ought to behave. And so how has he treated the North American continent? With abuse, greed and neglect. I am sorry, I can not respect a bishop who acts in such a way, while at the same time claining to be a successor to the Apostles. Further he speaks with a split tongue, on the one hand rejecting Rome and it's policies and on the other hand taking a very Roman Catholic approach to jurisdiction.

 

[Joshua G.]

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 definitely agree... in fact I would go as far as to say it would work (administratively at least).

 

[Michael G]

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.

It will work, it just won't have the backing of the EP. Nor does it need the backing of the EP because it will most probably have the backing of the MP. The MP is important because prior to the Russian Revolution all Orthodox in North America were under Russian bishops and the MP is the one who granted the tomos of autocephaly to the OCA.

And so to the Patriach of Moscow I say: AXIOS! Vladyka!

 

[Joshua G.]

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.

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. 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.

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.

Another thing... let's say it is money and relevance the EP is after in holding on to his people abroad... Okay, I'm willing to concede that. I DO believe he does care about his people abroad but it is true that the Patriarcate of Constantinople would probably collapse and become nothing should it lose the so-called diaspora, especially in richer countries like the US and Canada. So certainly that plays a large part in his complete reluctance to do anything that would jeopardize that relationship. And those reasons certainly aren't impressive examples of humility, at least not to those of us who are not inside the problem and don't understand it as he and his local flock do.

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).

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?

Or try this. If someone at your own parish was doing something that you felt harmed the future of the parish or worked against outreach (someone on the board), would you show him or her digust to their face? Would you talk badly about them (not just their ideas) behind their backs? I am afraid that I would have to answer: quite possibly (or even probably) if I was passionate enough about this. But is this right? Certianly it is my right to disagree vehemently with them and even my duty depending on the issue. It is also my duty to equally pray that God's will (not mine) be done and that I pray fro them and love them and SHOW them love both to their face and behind their back. Why should it be any different for a Bishop... especially when he has the weight of the world on his back (In the case of the EP, a world that is increasingly falling to shambles around him... but that's beside the point really).

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). This is my honest opinion and I feel VERY strongly about this. THAT SAID... I will trust whatever happens. I pray that I will take whatever road allows me to be the least bitter and allows me to embitter others the least. If tomorrow my parish is taken away from Patriarch Kyrill and I am under Metropolitan Jonah or worse yet (bc it wouldn't make any sense) Patriarch Bartholomew, I will joyfully go along with it, because all I truly need to care about is if my parish is Orthodox. God did NOT put me in a place to make these decisions, especially as they have nothing to do with actual doctrine but silly things like jurisdictions, power and other things that won't matter when I've passed from this life.

Joshua

PS: Regarding what I said in the last paragraph, I would not be heart-stricken to be under such a wonderful leader as Met. Jonah but rather I would be heart-stricken to leave the MP which I consider my home and I do belive that Orthodoxy in America has benefited from still having to deal with the MP as they help to off-set the wonderful zeal of the OCA with due caution. Again, as I said, all I care about is that my parish is Orthodox and loves Christ and her brethern in the end.

 

[EricTheRed]

I do not think the other churches would allow Constantinople to fall it lost its American income. I am pretty sure the other Churches would in fact hold collections for Constantinople and I would defiantly try to help.

I do agree on respecting the Bishops. Although in a different manner, to me its kinda like the military rank system. You have to respect the rank, even if you do not respect the person.

 

[Joshua G.]

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

 

[Michael G]

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.

 

[EricTheRed]

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 agree. We need to show love for them even if we disagree, although that can be hard to do.

 

[E.C.]

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 believe that you are correct here.

In the beginning of Orthodoxy in America it was Russians and Native Alaskans. In the early 20th century it was immigrants. In the middle of the 20th century it was the immigrants grown old and their children. Today in the 21st century there are a lot of converts, myself included, mixed with the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the immigrants and the Alaskans be they Russian or Native.

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 concur.

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'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?

I like to believe that the "America" part of the OCA's name refers to America as a continent and not the country of the USA. I believe that it is only within the English-speaking world and European world in which "America" means exclusively the USA. I know a lot of Latin Americans and I am learning Spanish in college. In the Spanish language "Americano" is not someone from the USA. "Americano" or "Americana" could be any living soul on the North or South American continents. A person from the USA is "estadounidence" or "United States person".

In my opinion it is sad that the Canadians and Mexicans within the OCA either are or may appear submissive to the rest of the Holy Synod with their Sees within the USA. I do not know. Personally I think that if I were a Mexican or American within the OCA I think I would prefer a neighboring foreign power rather than one across an ocean and a sea and held hostage by closet Islamists. But, I do not know the situation of Orthodoxy in Mexico or Canada nor do I know how Orthodox Canadians or Orthodox Mexicans think so I'd best keep my mouth shut.

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.

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.

So, only one of thirteen dioceses is in Canada, one in thirteen is in Mexico and the other eleven and of those eleven thirteen are ethnic dioceses. I can see why Canadians or Mexicans would feel like they are under a "foreign power" because, really, they are. Is there an autocephalous Canadian Orthodox Church or an autocephalous Mexican Orthodox Church?
No. There is not. There is just the Orthodox Church in America along with a whole mess of various jurisdictions on this continent.

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.

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".

In my opinion, the denial of the canonocity (is that a word?) of a canonical Orthodox bishop because he was not under the EP can become a matter of doctrine and/or 'issue'.

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 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.

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.

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.

As a former Roman Catholic I have to call a spade a spade when I see it: the EP is trying to make himself to be a Roman Catholic like pope figure.

During the 1940s or 1950s, maybe even the 1930s, St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco addressed the whole ROCOR about the EP and why he was trying to apply a canon to gain canonical territory. It goes back to the days of the Ottomans. The Ottomans put a tax on the title "Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, etc etc" and so the bishops would have to collect taxes from the faithful within their territory to pay for the tax for the title. When the Churches in the Balkans began to appear (Serbia, Romania, etc) with the rise of nationalism and with the crumbling of the Ottoman yoke, the bishops within the Ottoman Empire were running low on territory to tax for the title "EP of Constantinople, etc etc". Hence the problems in Estonia between Russia and the EP. Hence the two bishops in Hong Kong, one EP the other Moscow. Hence a lot of dual bishop sitting. Personally I'm jealous of Africa because they are all under one Church! There are no jurisdictions in Africa!

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.

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?

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).

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?

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?

Bolded and underlined for emphasis.

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 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?

I agree that having one jurisdiction by June 2009 is also a bit of a stretch, but if they all agreed that they will at least make an outline or some thing like that for one, than I would be happy. If they all acknowledged the autocephaly of the OCA and came to some plan for there to be one jurisdiction on this continent, than I would be happier than a little kid in a candy store.


Last Sunday, my priest and I went to one of the Greek churches in Seattle for the pan-Orthodox vespers that we tend to do during Lent. There were four priests. Fr. J who was my priest (OCA), Fr. D who was the parish priest (obviously GOARCH), Fr. I. (Serbian Diocese) and Fr. V. (retired OCA). At the end of the vespers, Fr. D. commemorated the saints of the day. Fr. V. noticed that it was St. Methodius's feast day and that St. Methodius was not commemorated, so he gathered Fr. I. and Fr. J. and they decided to accuse Fr. D. of being anti-Slav. They did this as a joke, Fr. D. knew it was a joke and at his 'defence' said "I'm just going off of the list from the bishop!" and everyone had a laugh!

The point! is that it had me thinking a few days later on how sad it is that a diocese, as a whole, will ignore and neglect a saint who enlightened entire nations.



Should there be a single jurisdiction in America? I think so. Should the Orthodox in America constantly be called "the diaspora"? I don't think so. I'm not Greek, Russian, Romanian or Arabic and none of my ancestors were either. Is the EP slowly becoming like a Roman Catholic-esque pope? From what I see and know, it appears that way to me. Does the existence of people whom are on this continent who came from a family history that has zero Greeks, Russians, Romanians, Arabs, etc; need to be really acknowledged by the "Old World"? I think so. Many bishops are converts and the head of an autocephalous Church is a convert as well. Besides, my family originally comes from Western Europe with a mix of Catholicism and Protestantism. Does this whole jurisdictional uncanonocity issue need to be resolved in one form or another? I think so.

Am I such a person to make any of those decisions? Thank God I am not, so I will leave that unfortunate job in the hands of those who's job it is and in God's hands.


That all being said, it is now Holy Week no matter what calendar you are on, Old or New, today was Palm Sunday. Pascha is a mere seven days from now. Lent is a time of "spiritual boot camp" and Holy Week is the toughest before the end. In my opinion, it would probably be for the good of everybody here, in one way or another, if we ceased the discussion here until after Pascha if not after Bright Week. I don't know about the rest of you, but I will not return to this thread until after Pascha.

 

[Michael G]

EC, you rock!

 

[Joshua G.]

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.

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.

I do not have disdain for YOU at all Michael. I have called you no names that I am aware of. I have merely called you out on public actions which are not becoming of an Orthodox. I am well aware that I will never change YOUR mind. My purpose, rather, is to counter your highly disrespectful comments and wording, offering perspective to those who are reading.

It is true we are not Catholic and none of our bishops hold infallible powers. We are completely welcome to disagree with our bishops, especially on issues as banal as jurisdiction. In fact, I agree with most of your disagreements!!!

But we are also not protestants. We believe that the office of bishops is to be respected.

Also, what we DO hold in common with protestants and Catholics is that we are not so slander our neighbor (i.e. brother and sister or enemy). None of us know that the intentions of EP are out of greed or power-mongering. We may have strong suspisions, but we have no right to share those suspicions in a public forum (either on the Internet or in real life) unless they become publically proven fact and, in the case of the Church, accepted by the Church.

Michael, you're my brother, and the disdain you show for your heirarchs concerns me a lot. But, I have observed you well enough to know that, at least in terms of discussions on CF, you're a tough nut to crack, so I assume that my words will have little or no impact on you. My hope is two fold 1) that Orthodox (especially the newly recieved) will realize that this is not an Orthodox way to approach disagreements with heirarchs and 2) that non-Orthodox realize that this is simply not Orthodox.

I belong to a few fora and I already no of at least one Orthodox catecumen who was very damaged by the way many were judging the intentions of the Patriarch of Antioch as much of the discussion made it sound as if we are to respect the decisions of bishops... as long as we personally agree. That is not the Orthodox mindset.

Let us pray for unity in WHATEVER and at WHATEVER TIME God's sees fit. But let's remember: overlapping bishoprics do not break union, WE make or break it through our actions and our love (or lack thereof).

Joshua

 

[Joshua G.]

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.
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.
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.
4) 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

 

[E.C.]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Of course, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Communist supported "Living Church" and other nasty things did not help the situation either. St. Tikhon gave the churches outside of Russia "temporary self-government" to govern themselves. He did not write a letter to any of the patriarchs and say "Hey, can you folks take care of North America until things settle down here in Russia?" Had he done that, than I personally would have no problem with the EP saying North America belongs under his omniphorion because at least then it would be because a neighbor asked for his help and he delivered as opposed to the politics, consolidations and backstabbings from 1917 until even today.


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".

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!


I respect Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I both as a bishop and as a human being. 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.

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.

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.

4) 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

Thank you


Now I'd better stay out of this thread until after Pascha like I said before

 

[Joshua G.]

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.

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.

The following are different points but interesting enough to discuss. I am only sharing opinions and thoughts here and not saying that I am definitely right on this:

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.

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.

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".

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 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!

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).

I respect Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I both as a bishop and as a human being.

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 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.

Addressed above.

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.

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.

Now I'd better stay out of this thread until after Pascha like I said before

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.

God bless brother in Christ,

Joshua

 

[Khaleas]

Interfax: Moscow Patriarchate disagrees with Constantinople desire to play specialrole in Orthodoxy

Moscow Patriarchate disagrees with Constantinople desire to play specialrole in Orthodoxy

MOSCOW. April 10 (Interfax) - Bishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk, thehead of the Moscow Patriarchate's external church relations department,has criticized the Constantinople Patriarchate's intention to controlall church communities within the Orthodox diaspora. "I see the situation in the inter-Orthodox relations surroundingthe Constantinople Patriarchate's claim to have some special role in theOrthodox Church as one of the key challenges today," Bishop Hilarionsaid at a press conference at the Interfax main office in Moscow onFriday. "What is happening is in fact an attempt to impose a model existingin the Catholic Church on the Orthodox Church to have as centralizedchurch power as possible, with one bishop leading it as the head of theEcumenical Church," he said. "There has never been such a model in the Orthodox tradition,"Bishop Hilarion said. He doubted it that "we are entitled to revise ourteaching about the Church." The leading hierarchs of the Constantinople Patriarchate arecalling for revising the principle of primacy in the Orthodox world,Bishop Hilarion said. This model presumes that the ConstantinoplePatriarchate "should administer all the churches within the so-calleddiaspora," that is, that all the communities outside the borders of thehistorical canonic national churches should be within Constantinople'sjurisdiction, he said. Bishop Hilarion said this issue will be discussed at an inter-Orthodox conference in June.