Antiochians are at it again.

[Second Chance]

Just so you know, converts bring their own ethnic hang-ups as well.  Try getting a Roman Catholic convert and Evangelical Calvinist convert in the same parish and watch the ethnic sparks fly!

One of the major problems we have here in the US is not acknowledging that there are just as big of cultural jumps between a Louisianan and a New Yorker as there are between an 'American' and a Greek.  Yet, we repeatedly see attempts to create 'meta-dioceses' encompassing incompatible American groups.

Out here on the 'Left Coast,' the phrase 'East Coast Orthodoxy' is a pejorative.  It is worse than the g-word and the n-word put together!

lol, are you sure you are not my priest? We discussed this in catechumen class yesterday.  People wanted to know why the bishops don't just get together and force everyone to just be an American Orthodox Church and ditch their ethnic tendencies.  Our parish is very convert, so not many people understand the importance that those who are ethnic place on that aspect of the church.  Our priest wisely counseled that with such things, it is better for them to organically work themselves out through time rather than forcing opposites together and causing strife.

Out of sheer ignorance, what is the difference between east coast and west coast Orthodoxy Churches?  I've never heard anyone here make any reference at all to west coast churches.

Now I feel like we are talking about rappers or something.  :laugh:

Father Giryus may have a different division, but I separate the States into West and and East of the Mississippi, with the South and Border states falling with the former, with the exception of Florida below Orlando. As for the differences between them, the "West of the Mississippi" area has a very high convert to cradle ratio, tends to tithe more, and generally is more informed about the faith.

 

[Second Chance]

Well, you have the advantage of being a part of recent history.  I'm just a student of it.   

I recall a priest once admonishing his bishop, "You act like a bishop at all the wrong times."

Yes, there's a lot of 'appeasement' in the attitudes priests have of their bishops.  I know a lot of priests who resent 'interference' from the bishop, when, in fact, it is really the bishop's parish to begin with and we are hired hands.  However, after 20 years, a priest may forget that and start to have a sense of possession.  Since all of my assignments have been to places where the bishop was already heavily involved, I'm used to a higher level of interaction. 

That's why I know about how poorly people deal with change, because, in every case, I've been sent in with a set of marching orders that the bishop (and, frankly, common sense) demanded.  I'm usually the one blamed for the changes, and so the complaints are usually about me.  The trick is to let people complain all they want about your obedience.  Bishops love those kinds of complaints.

However, I have witnessed cases where bishops forgot that they told their priests to do something, or the priests were sent to seminaries that taught priests to do things differently from the bishop's practices, then the priest wonders why he is in trouble.  Again, we have to be cautious when exerting change.  My sense is that young priests fresh out of seminary need to have a sit-down with the eparchial hierarch and to take copious notes as to what is expected of him.  I've seen more than one case where the bishop and the priest have very different expectations, but nobody is communicating.

For any Assembly plan to work, it would first have to be implemented in the seminaries, which means the faculty would probably have to go back to school a little bit themselves and perhaps a few reassignments.  Seminarians will pick up on cynicism, and institutional cynicism is positively destructive.

Dear Father--I think the need for "...young priests fresh out of seminary ... to have a sit-down with the eparchial hierarch and to take copious notes as to what is expected of him" must be complemented with regular and frank face-to-face meetings between the parish priests and the deans. Given the paucity of candidates, it will be a long time before we have sufficient number of bishops to do away with a rigorous deanery system.

 

[FatherGiryus]

Dear Samn,

You are absolutely correct.  I was largely thinking of the US situation.  Most of the Arab immigration has been elsewhere, since the US seems to be favoring Latin American immigration over Middle Eastern exiles.  My sense is that they would see it as an acknowledgement of failed US policies.

So, on the South America/Western Europe fronts, there will indeed be an influx of new immigrants.  However, the present US policy probably means that we will not be seeing too many new faces here for the time being.

Unless Albania invades Greece or Kazakhstan invades Russia, we are not looking at a big wave of immigrants to replenish many of the larger ethnic enclaves.  There will be nothing other than the continued pattern of assimilation.

Fr Jiryus,

While I agree with most of your reasoning, and I wholeheartedly agree about the wisdom of taking things slow, I think this particular statement is far from Antioch's thinking. Europe, South America, and North America should all be preparing for a significant Syrian influx. If this does not happen, praise God, but we can't base our planning on the expectation of miracles. Part of the larger reasoning behind a lot of the statements of the Patriarch and the Synod is that Antioch, as much as this is due to lamentable causes, is a very international church. On paper, there are probably as many Antiochian faithful in Chile, Argentina, and Brazil as in Lebanon (the total number of Christians of Greater Syrian decent in South America would equal at least half of the modern population of Greater Syria). It's notable that one of the first things that changed when the John X became patriarch was to start issuing all synodal decisions in English, Spanish, German, and French (and often Russian, Romanian, and Portuguese).

So, one of the ways to read the decision regarding Europe is that Britain (which is almost entirely convert outside London), France (which is largely well-off and Lebanese), and Germany (where the largest parishes are made up of people from Hatay) have different pastoral needs, necessitating different metropolitans rather than different bishops within a single archdiocese, in preparation for expected rapid growth.

In any case, the struggle to liberate the Patriarchate of Jerusalem from the Greeks is part of Antioch's historical mission-- and, if we think of St Raphael's efforts in this regard, part of the historical mission of the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America, and something far more important than the limited value of the Assembly of Bishops.

 

[FatherGiryus]

Actually, the deanery system is far more important overseas than it is here.  In Romania, the 'protopopes' really run the show for the bishops, who often have hundreds of priests to supervise.  When I was in Iaşi last year, the deaneries I visited ran between 75-150 priests each.  The city itself had three deaneries.  There's no way to have the 'micro-management' you tend to see in American parishes.  Then again, our whole system is dysfunctional.

After all, think about this: the average priest gets a Master's Degree to do work generally handled by a high school grad overseas, yet both receive proportional remuneration.  A lot of the younger priests are shocked to find out that their theological achievements are of no interest to their parishioners compared with their pastoral skills, which are largely undeveloped in seminary.

I think the entire system needs reworking, even down to the ordination prayers: priests are mostly taken up with duties for which we were not ordained if you follow the exactness of the prayers.  We mostly do tasks that are covered by the bishop's consecration, not the blessing we have from the Church.  I think this is why we have so many problems. 

We really need to reexamine what priests are supposed to do and include those tasks in the ordination rites, because we all need the Holy Spirit's help to carry out our duties.  That also includes a change in the canons to reflect the increased expectations of priests by the Church.  The old system assumed a minimally-educated man largely devoted to sacramental duties, whereas the modern priest in the 'diaspora' is expected to be liturgist, homilist, catechist, book-keeper, lawyer, evangelist, counselor, plumber, etc. ... all while making sure that he is getting paid enough to feed his family.  That's why it does not take much for many of us to 'implode.'

Well, you have the advantage of being a part of recent history.  I'm just a student of it.   

I recall a priest once admonishing his bishop, "You act like a bishop at all the wrong times."

Yes, there's a lot of 'appeasement' in the attitudes priests have of their bishops.  I know a lot of priests who resent 'interference' from the bishop, when, in fact, it is really the bishop's parish to begin with and we are hired hands.  However, after 20 years, a priest may forget that and start to have a sense of possession.  Since all of my assignments have been to places where the bishop was already heavily involved, I'm used to a higher level of interaction. 

That's why I know about how poorly people deal with change, because, in every case, I've been sent in with a set of marching orders that the bishop (and, frankly, common sense) demanded.  I'm usually the one blamed for the changes, and so the complaints are usually about me.  The trick is to let people complain all they want about your obedience.  Bishops love those kinds of complaints.

However, I have witnessed cases where bishops forgot that they told their priests to do something, or the priests were sent to seminaries that taught priests to do things differently from the bishop's practices, then the priest wonders why he is in trouble.  Again, we have to be cautious when exerting change.  My sense is that young priests fresh out of seminary need to have a sit-down with the eparchial hierarch and to take copious notes as to what is expected of him.  I've seen more than one case where the bishop and the priest have very different expectations, but nobody is communicating.

For any Assembly plan to work, it would first have to be implemented in the seminaries, which means the faculty would probably have to go back to school a little bit themselves and perhaps a few reassignments.  Seminarians will pick up on cynicism, and institutional cynicism is positively destructive.

Dear Father--I think the need for "...young priests fresh out of seminary ... to have a sit-down with the eparchial hierarch and to take copious notes as to what is expected of him" must be complemented with regular and frank face-to-face meetings between the parish priests and the deans. Given the paucity of candidates, it will be a long time before we have sufficient number of bishops to do away with a rigorous deanery system.

 

[Maximum Bob]

Well, this has been thoroughly interesting and helpful so far in several ways. I sincerely wish to thank the various participants for their contributions. I wish I had more to add myself but given the time and my lack of knowledge and experience in these matters, the contribution of my thanks will have to suffice for now.

 

[TheTrisagion]

I love when priests post.  It is like getting a peak into a window and realizing that they are actual real people who struggle with their bosses and customers/parishoners just like anyone else.  FatherGiryus, thank you for your candor and insight.  I really do appreciate it and it makes me try to take my own priest less for granted knowing all the dynamics that are pulling on him.

 

[podkarpatska]

With respect to Father G' s comments, I will add that my dad would tell young men entering the seminary to remember that that Church had plenty of good theologians, but good pastors were always in short supply. He must have done something right as during his six decade priesthood, he inspired fourteen vocations to the priesthood including one who is now a Bishop and numerous deacons. A good parish priest, he would say, was a true spiritual father and the unwillingness of so many clergy to fulfill the role of a good shepherd always burdened him.  (In some jurisdictions the pastor is the book keeper, but in America I don't think that is the norm, certainly not in ACROD or the UOC.)

 

[ialmisry]

Just so you know, converts bring their own ethnic hang-ups as well.  Try getting a Roman Catholic convert and Evangelical Calvinist convert in the same parish and watch the ethnic sparks fly!

One of the major problems we have here in the US is not acknowledging that there are just as big of cultural jumps between a Louisianan and a New Yorker as there are between an 'American' and a Greek.  Yet, we repeatedly see attempts to create 'meta-dioceses' encompassing incompatible American groups.

Out here on the 'Left Coast,' the phrase 'East Coast Orthodoxy' is a pejorative.  It is worse than the g-word and the n-word put together!

lol, are you sure you are not my priest? We discussed this in catechumen class yesterday.  People wanted to know why the bishops don't just get together and force everyone to just be an American Orthodox Church and ditch their ethnic tendencies.  Our parish is very convert, so not many people understand the importance that those who are ethnic place on that aspect of the church.  Our priest wisely counseled that with such things, it is better for them to organically work themselves out through time rather than forcing opposites together and causing strife.

g-word, Father?

I once got into an argument who suggested Diocesan boundaries on the US map, in utter disregard of the demographics.  "Most people aren't Orthodox anyways," was the "reasoning."  As if the Orthodox don't live in those societies, let alone the issue of mission.  As for your example, New York an Louisiana are further apart than Greece and Sweden, both of which are in the European Union-who wants to argue that Greeks are just like Swedes?

 

[FatherGiryus]

Yes, the g-word.  Not going to write it, lest I get the 'green dot.' 

The EU is an economic arrangement, not unlike the US in many respects.  However, I am not suggesting that the EU is working or workable.

I certainly would not try to run a Swedish Orthodox community with Greek bishops, just as I think the reverse would be equally disastrous.

g-word, Father?

I once got into an argument who suggested Diocesan boundaries on the US map, in utter disregard of the demographics.  "Most people aren't Orthodox anyways," was the "reasoning."  As if the Orthodox don't live in those societies, let alone the issue of mission.  As for your example, New York an Louisiana are further apart than Greece and Sweden, both of which are in the European Union-who wants to argue that Greeks are just like Swedes?

 

[FatherGiryus]

Well, PK, your father and I have watched more than a few good priests self-immolate over these conflicts.

America is a conflicted land in Church terms.  We require priests to get graduate degrees, but then pay them and treat them like high-school grads.  We demand that they offer professional-level counseling, but don't actually train them to do it.  Bishops send priests to seminaries, but the bishops don't agree with half the curriculum the priests receive.  Then, they wonder why they are fighting with new clergy all the time... 

It is hard to shepherd when you are not the shepherd... the bishop is the real shepherd, and we priests are just sheep dogs.  You cannot shepherd without authority, and a priest really does not have such authority either in the canons or the very ordination prayers.  We are 'sacramental machines,' and whatever shepherding we do is purely 'charismatic' in the sense that God gives it rather than it being part of the job description.  That being said, it would be better if there were more priests who have that gift.  Most of us know how to bully, but only a few can really shepherd.  I know that I am not a shepherd, and so I don't try.  I just serve and try to follow orders and hope I don't mess anyone up, because I will have to answer for that now and later.

If I last another 10 years (odds are against me based on what has happened to my class over the last decade), God may give me that gift, but then again he may not.  I think it is a gift that requires experience, of which I have only a little.

With respect to Father G' s comments, I will add that my dad would tell young men entering the seminary to remember that that Church had plenty of good theologians, but good pastors were always in short supply. He must have done something right as during his six decade priesthood, he inspired fourteen vocations to the priesthood including one who is now a Bishop and numerous deacons. A good parish priest, he would say, was a true spiritual father and the unwillingness of so many clergy to fulfill the role of a good shepherd always burdened him.  (In some jurisdictions the pastor is the book keeper, but in America I don't think that is the norm, certainly not in ACROD or the UOC.)

 

[hecma925]

I'm confused why the Antiochian Patriarchate is so upset when the official title of the Jerusalem Patriarch is "His Most Godly Beatitude, the Patriarch of the Holy City of Jerusalem and all Palestine, Syria, Arabia, beyond the Jordan River, Cana of Galilee, and Holy Zion."  

I'm perplexed.

Antioch is Patriarch of "all the East," but not really, when Moscow and the EP encroach all over the East.  

Lord, have mercy.

 

[rakovsky]

g-word, Father?

I once got into an argument who suggested Diocesan boundaries on the US map, in utter disregard of the demographics.  "Most people aren't Orthodox anyways," was the "reasoning."  As if the Orthodox don't live in those societies, let alone the issue of mission.  As for your example, New York an Louisiana are further apart than Greece and Sweden, both of which are in the European Union-who wants to argue that Greeks are just like Swedes?

G Word can be "God", like using God's name in vain, or it could be "gay".

Although Fr. Gyrius mentioned a possible conflict with them, I think Evangelical and Roman Catholic converts should be able to get along in a parish and put their predispositions behind themselves, since they are converts after all.

It is more difficult, but I also think northerners and southerners who are Orthodox should be able to get along. They have alot more in common, being Orthodox, and fortunately the church is not supposed to be about politics. However, I can imagine how problems could arise.

 

[primuspilus]

I think Evangelical and Roman Catholic converts should be able to get along in a parish and put their predispositions behind themselves, since they are converts after all

They do. I have no idea where this assumption that they dont comes from.

Frankly, if you're Orthodox and your pants are all in a twist because you're Russian and the only church near you is Greek and you make a big fuss over it, you have much bigger problems than not getting Borscht during coffee hour, or not hearing Russian in the Liturgy.

As for the New Yorker and the person from Louisiana, there are plenty of examples to disprove this. The issue is hyper racial nonsense in our parishes.

Orthodoxy is not an ethnic museum. If you think that the Church should be protecting your ethnic customs, go back to Catechesis.

For the whole Jerusalem thing, I'll take the Jerusalem thing seriously when we collectively get our acts together in the diaspora. I dont want to hear ANYTHING about intrusions into territories when Holy Assumption (OCA), St George's (Antioch), St. Nicholas (Greek) Cathedrals are all within 5 miles of each other in the same city (pittsburgh in this example).

Frankly, if its that big of a deal, let Jerusalem have Qatar. We're all one Church afterall, at least that is what we tell everyone.

PP

 

[TheTrisagion]

I think Evangelical and Roman Catholic converts should be able to get along in a parish and put their predispositions behind themselves, since they are converts after all

They do. I have no idea where this assumption that they dont comes from.

Frankly, if you're Orthodox and your pants are all in a twist because you're Russian and the only church near you is Greek and you make a big fuss over it, you have much bigger problems than not getting Borscht during coffee hour, or not hearing Russian in the Liturgy.

As for the New Yorker and the person from Louisiana, there are plenty of examples to disprove this. The issue is hyper racial nonsense in our parishes.

Orthodoxy is not an ethnic museum. If you think that the Church should be protecting your ethnic customs, go back to Catechesis.

For the whole Jerusalem thing, I'll take the Jerusalem thing seriously when we collectively get our acts together in the diaspora. I dont want to hear ANYTHING about intrusions into territories when Holy Assumption (OCA), St George's (Antioch), St. Nicholas (Greek) Cathedrals are all within 5 miles of each other in the same city (pittsburgh in this example).

Frankly, if its that big of a deal, let Jerusalem have Qatar. We're all one Church afterall, at least that is what we tell everyone.

PP

+1

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Frankly, if you're Orthodox and your pants are all in a twist because you're Russian and the only church near you is Greek and you make a big fuss over it, you have much bigger problems than not getting Borscht during coffee hour, or not hearing Russian in the Liturgy.

Depends on the nature of the fuss.  I'm not going to criticise immigrants for craving some familiarity in a foreign land. 

Orthodoxy is not an ethnic museum. If you think that the Church should be protecting your ethnic customs, go back to Catechesis.

True, as far as it goes.  But it sets up a dichotomy between "Church" and "community" that even the Church does not make so easily.  IOW, it's a bit more complicated than "go back to Catechesis". 

For the whole Jerusalem thing, I'll take the Jerusalem thing seriously when we collectively get our acts together in the diaspora. I dont want to hear ANYTHING about intrusions into territories when Holy Assumption (OCA), St George's (Antioch), St. Nicholas (Greek) Cathedrals are all within 5 miles of each other in the same city (pittsburgh in this example).

Frankly, if its that big of a deal, let Jerusalem have Qatar. We're all one Church afterall, at least that is what we tell everyone.

Wrongs here do not justify wrongs elsewhere.  Ignoring the canons is a part of what created the diaspora mess, and allowing that to infect "the homeland" isn't going to achieve anything of value. 

 

[primuspilus]

Wrongs here do not justify wrongs elsewhere.  Ignoring the canons is a part of what created the diaspora mess, and allowing that to infect "the homeland" isn't going to achieve anything of value

I understand your point. What I was getting at is there is a FAR bigger problem in the diaspora than in QUatar and worrying about it is a huge waste of energy and resources.

PP

 

[Mor Ephrem]

I understand your point. What I was getting at is there is a FAR bigger problem in the diaspora than in QUatar and worrying about it is a huge waste of energy and resources.

It's a matter of perspective.  What's the problem in the diaspora?  If you live in the diaspora, there are many.  But if you're "back home" and have a chance to own a share of the cash cow abroad, why would you care about canonical propriety there?  But no one wants those chickens to come home to roost.  The problems in one's own backyard are always the most pressing, especially when someone else's backyard is tithing to you. 

 

[podkarpatska]

Frankly, if you're Orthodox and your pants are all in a twist because you're Russian and the only church near you is Greek and you make a big fuss over it, you have much bigger problems than not getting Borscht during coffee hour, or not hearing Russian in the Liturgy.

Depends on the nature of the fuss.  I'm not going to criticise immigrants for craving some familiarity in a foreign land.  

Orthodoxy is not an ethnic museum. If you think that the Church should be protecting your ethnic customs, go back to Catechesis.

True, as far as it goes.  But it sets up a dichotomy between "Church" and "community" that even the Church does not make so easily.  IOW, it's a bit more complicated than "go back to Catechesis".  

For the whole Jerusalem thing, I'll take the Jerusalem thing seriously when we collectively get our acts together in the diaspora. I dont want to hear ANYTHING about intrusions into territories when Holy Assumption (OCA), St George's (Antioch), St. Nicholas (Greek) Cathedrals are all within 5 miles of each other in the same city (pittsburgh in this example).

Frankly, if its that big of a deal, let Jerusalem have Qatar. We're all one Church afterall, at least that is what we tell everyone.

Wrongs here do not justify wrongs elsewhere.  Ignoring the canons is a part of what created the diaspora mess, and allowing that to infect "the homeland" isn't going to achieve anything of value.  

Thank you Mor, as once again, you expressed what I was trying to articulate and post - but I actually finished reading the thread first for once! (Shoot first, read second is a common fault online for most!)

Of course the Church is not an ethnic museum, but one of the distinguishing characteristics of Orthodoxy which sets it apart from Roman Catholicism is our historical organization by regional or national Churches. You can't dismiss the interrelationship between culture and faith within the various Orthodox communities by making a philosophical point or an abstraction.

Balance is a quality Orthodoxy always is seeking to achieve. Usually it fails to completely achieve this, but for the most part we come rather close. That concept of maintaining a healthy balance should apply to the role of culture in a parish. If culture is used as a barrier to keep people away from the faith, the balance is not present. Likewise, if the faith is used as a sword to shut out culture in a parish where culture is part and parcel of the faith community's 'raison d'etre' - that is equally out of balance.

In a parish comprised of Americans of many diverse cultures, there is naturally less of a culture shock. But to imply that the spiritual worth of a more homogeneous parish is somehow diminished simply because of the human affinity to seek comfort in that which is familiar is unfair and, for the most part, inaccurate.

I think back on the life of my parish, when I was a child the immigrant founders' generation was dying off. Their children and grandchildren (my parent's generation) were respectful of the old ways but starting to 'break the mold.' Today we have no, and I mean no, Slavonic in our Liturgy or other services (save for an occasional Vicnaja Pamjat or Mnohaja Lit, Christos Voskrese and the like), we no longer bring out the tsymbaly or violins, dance the old dances and sing the old songs, toast the old heroes until the sun rises again and listen to the old stories of unrequited love or tremendous valor. Coffee hour consists of day old bagels and Sam's Club pastries with weak coffee. I'm not sure things are 'better' than they were or 'worse'. They are - to be sure - different.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Coffee hour consists of day old bagels and Sam's Club pastries with weak coffee. I'm not sure things are 'better' than they were or 'worse'. They are - to be sure - different.

If your coffee hour involves day old bagels and weak coffee, things have definitely gotten worse. 

 

[podkarpatska]

Coffee hour consists of day old bagels and Sam's Club pastries with weak coffee. I'm not sure things are 'better' than they were or 'worse'. They are - to be sure - different.

If your coffee hour involves day old bagels and weak coffee, things have definitely gotten worse. 

But the bagels - they're FREE! We have to be true to our Rusyn roots. And to add insult to injury, the guy who makes the coffee usually, he goes to Dunkin Donuts and stands around with his own coffee. We are a cantankerous bunch for sure....

 

[Shlomlokh]

Coffee hour consists of day old bagels and Sam's Club pastries with weak coffee. I'm not sure things are 'better' than they were or 'worse'. They are - to be sure - different.

If your coffee hour involves day old bagels and weak coffee, things have definitely gotten worse. 

You perfectly described our coffee hour most Sundays!

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[podkarpatska]

Coffee hour consists of day old bagels and Sam's Club pastries with weak coffee. I'm not sure things are 'better' than they were or 'worse'. They are - to be sure - different.

If your coffee hour involves day old bagels and weak coffee, things have definitely gotten worse. 

You perfectly described our coffee hour most Sundays!

In Christ,
Andrew

Crossing cultural barriers! A good thing indeed....

 

[sheenj]

Man I feel spoiled now; in our church we have someone volunteer to cook or cater food every week. ;D

 

[ialmisry]

I'm confused why the Antiochian Patriarchate is so upset when the official title of the Jerusalem Patriarch is "His Most Godly Beatitude, the Patriarch of the Holy City of Jerusalem and all Palestine, Syria, Arabia, beyond the Jordan River, Cana of Galilee, and Holy Zion."  

I'm perplexed.

It's the comma: it's "Arabia beyond the Jordan River," i.e. Transjordan, or as we say "Jordan."  The Phanariots, still living in the Ottoman Empire but dreaming of the Empire of the Romans, mapped it (at least until recently), thus:

Antioch is Patriarch of "all the East," but not really, when Moscow and the EP encroach all over the East.

Moscow helped Antioch become again the master of his own house.  As for the Phanar, it has taken a liking to encroaching everywhere, which is how the Chambessy Accords ran away from its control.

Lord, have mercy.

God helps those who help themselves.

 

[hecma925]

Thanks for the maps.  It makes a little more sense.

 

[Shanghaiski]

Coffee hour consists of day old bagels and Sam's Club pastries with weak coffee. I'm not sure things are 'better' than they were or 'worse'. They are - to be sure - different.

If your coffee hour involves day old bagels and weak coffee, things have definitely gotten worse. 

No wonder why so many are leaving the Church.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

If your coffee hour involves day old bagels and weak coffee, things have definitely gotten worse. 

No wonder why so many are leaving the Church.

This is a faithful saying: OO coffee hour > EO coffee hour

 

[podkarpatska]

My dad would often reminisce about his first years as a priest in the early 1940's. No coffee hour or stale bagels back then. But there was a bar in the basement hall and it operated as a "revenue stream" as we would say nowadays. However there was only one man they could agree upon to trust with the keys. One guess.... Church meetings were probably more lively I suppose.

 

[primuspilus]

I understand your point. What I was getting at is there is a FAR bigger problem in the diaspora than in Qatar and worrying about it is a huge waste of energy and resources.

It's a matter of perspective.  What's the problem in the diaspora?  If you live in the diaspora, there are many.  But if you're "back home" and have a chance to own a share of the cash cow abroad, why would you care about canonical propriety there?  But no one wants those chickens to come home to roost.  The problems in one's own backyard are always the most pressing, especially when someone else's backyard is tithing to you. 

Tue enough. However the ones in power have the "say-so" in the Diaspora and back home as well (in this case, the Holy Synod of Antioch and The Patriarch). I find it very perplexing for such things to be ok in one instance, yet not ok in another...

I guess I just find the whole affair to be rather confusing.

PP

EDIT: Didn't Antioch appeal to the EP, who sided with Jerusalem?

 

[Nephi]

EDIT: Didn't Antioch appeal to the EP, who sided with Jerusalem?

What I've read, they did appeal to the EP to mediate but it always said "without resolution" or something to that effect. People talking about the subject imply that the EP did side with Jerusalem, whom the EP supposedly has great hold over.

 

[primuspilus]

EDIT: Didn't Antioch appeal to the EP, who sided with Jerusalem?

What I've read, they did appeal to the EP to mediate but it always said "without resolution" or something to that effect. People talking about the subject imply that the EP did side with Jerusalem, whom the EP supposedly has great hold over.

My priest mentioned something about the EP getting involved, but I didn't know one way or another.

I still think Antioch is overreacting.

PP

 

[Santagranddad]

Sad, at one time issues of great theological significance might raise deep issues within and between local churches, or the throwing of stones between one party and another as someone in another thread typified it. Nowadays it more likely that territorial sensitivities, manoeuvres over precedent or the like will stir the passions.

 

[Aristobolus]

Even the new title is disrespectful, but well intentioned I am sure.  The report of the Holy Synod includes the following:

"The Synod Fathers discussed some issues of concern for the universal Orthodox Church. They stressed the need for continued coordination between all Orthodox Churches in order to promote the Orthodox presence in the world and for a living testimony of Christ for contemporary man. In this regard, the Fathers stressed the need for cooperation between the Orthodox Churches to show the unity of the Church of Christ in a more effective way, and to facilitate the meeting of the Great and Holy Orthodox Synod." 

These holy Hierarchs, many of whom have witnessed great suffering even to the point of martyrdom, are not lying when they write of their earnest desire for unity in the Church.  They even mention being a part of facilitating an upcoming "Great and Holy Orthodox Synod". 

The Patriarchate of Jerusalem was given two months simply to reply; if no response is given then communion ceases and participation in the general episcopal assemblies is suspended.  To simply ask for some kind of response in two months is hardly an overreaction.  Notice all they are asking for is real dialogue; the message is that if the Patriarch of Constantinople wants to facilitate curing abiding canonical anomalies then he and his supporters must prevent a fresh anomaly from taking root.

 

[mike]

The Patriarchate of Jerusalem was given two months simply to reply; if no response is given then communion ceases and participation in the general episcopal assemblies is suspended.  To simply ask for some kind of response in two months is hardly an overreaction.  Notice all they are asking for is real dialogue; the message is that if the Patriarch of Constantinople wants to facilitate curing abiding canonical anomalies then he and his supporters must prevent a fresh anomaly from taking root.

"Johny stole my toy so I hit Jimmy back".

Yeah, perfectly logical.

 

[Aristobolus]

No, more like Johny is riding his four-wheeler on my property, and he needs to knock it off!  Let him go and ride on his land!

 

[BTRAKAS]

Sad, at one time issues of great theological significance might raise deep issues within and between local churches, or the throwing of stones between one party and another as someone in another thread typified it. Nowadays it more likely that territorial sensitivities, manoeuvres over precedent or the like will stir the passions.

Indeed!  

For the first 300 years after the time of Christ on Earth, Christians were persecuted.

We get our freedom and we fight amongst ourselves, debates over matters of our own theology.

Today,

a small parish in Qatar, another "territory" of less than marginal importance, threatens to cause a brake in Communion between two of the Ancient Patriarchates, both of which have far more serious problems with Moslem persecution;

we fight over whether dispersed people live in diaspora;

and the two most prominent "Heads" of the Holy Orthodox Churches fight over freak'n China and Japan, if I'm not mistaken?  Much as I support a strong coordinating ("coordinating," not jurisdictional or dictatorial) responsibility of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, I am at a complete loss to understand any legitimate claim by Patriarch Bartholomew over these two territories; give it up Your All Holiness, if this will bring peace between the Churches of Constantinople and Russia, and our Holy Orthodoxy;

But then there's still that pesky little, yet unresolved, matter of Estonia;

Moldova;

and the Church of the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia;" ha,

And the divisions of importance in Ukraine.

 

[podkarpatska]

Sad, at one time issues of great theological significance might raise deep issues within and between local churches, or the throwing of stones between one party and another as someone in another thread typified it. Nowadays it more likely that territorial sensitivities, manoeuvres over precedent or the like will stir the passions.

Indeed!  

For the first 300 years after the time of Christ on Earth, Christians were persecuted.

We get our freedom and we fight amongst ourselves, debates over matters of our own theology.

Today,

a small parish in Qatar, another "territory" of less than marginal importance, threatens to cause a brake in Communion between two of the Ancient Patriarchates, both of which have far more serious problems with Moslem persecution;

we fight over whether dispersed people live in diaspora;

and the two most prominent "Heads" of the Holy Orthodox Churches fight over freak'n China and Japan, if I'm not mistaken?  Much as I support a strong coordinating ("coordinating," not jurisdictional or dictatorial) responsibility of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, I am at a complete loss to understand any legitimate claim by Patriarch Bartholomew over these two territories; give it up Your All Holiness, if this will bring peace between the Churches of Constantinople and Russia, and our Holy Orthodoxy;

But then there's still that pesky little, yet unresolved, matter of Estonia;

Moldova;

and the Church of the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia;" ha,

And the divisions of importance in Ukraine.

At the risk of offending many here, this nonsense almost makes Rome's arguments in support of supremacy seem somewhat more understandable.

OK, OK

I DID SAY ALMOST....

 

[BTRAKAS]

You're right, "almost," the situation in Reply No. 75 is the fruits of Orthodox Church governance, i.e. "Church Order," of today; "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

Try explaining this stuff to, non-Orthodox, educated people.

 

[primuspilus]

Sad, at one time issues of great theological significance might raise deep issues within and between local churches, or the throwing of stones between one party and another as someone in another thread typified it. Nowadays it more likely that territorial sensitivities, manoeuvres over precedent or the like will stir the passions.

Indeed!  

For the first 300 years after the time of Christ on Earth, Christians were persecuted.

We get our freedom and we fight amongst ourselves, debates over matters of our own theology.

Today,

a small parish in Qatar, another "territory" of less than marginal importance, threatens to cause a brake in Communion between two of the Ancient Patriarchates, both of which have far more serious problems with Moslem persecution;

we fight over whether dispersed people live in diaspora;

and the two most prominent "Heads" of the Holy Orthodox Churches fight over freak'n China and Japan, if I'm not mistaken?  Much as I support a strong coordinating ("coordinating," not jurisdictional or dictatorial) responsibility of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, I am at a complete loss to understand any legitimate claim by Patriarch Bartholomew over these two territories; give it up Your All Holiness, if this will bring peace between the Churches of Constantinople and Russia, and our Holy Orthodoxy;

But then there's still that pesky little, yet unresolved, matter of Estonia;

Moldova;

and the Church of the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia;" ha,

And the divisions of importance in Ukraine.

Wonderfully said.

PP

 

[podkarpatska]

You're right, "almost," the situation in Reply No. 75 is the fruits of Orthodox Church governance, i.e. "Church Order," of today; "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

Try explaining this stuff to, non-Orthodox, educated people.

Good blog post yesterday from First Things on this subject and the Asian silly business.

'The Chambésy process is the worst form of Orthodox church government for the 21st century, except for all the others. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has the power to bring bishops together, but he cannot force them to accept an unwelcome edict. When disputes arise, they must be resolved honestly by brother bishops and their flocks, even if the solutions are slow to come.'
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/11/eastern-orthodox-unity

By the way, the only process intellectualized in the first millenium to accelerate the process of solving these issues, was that of the Romans which of course led to the Great Schism, and as I said in #75 the behavior of our Church leaders today is almost enough to lend credence to Rome's approach. Both the approaches of the west AND the east seem to me however to have failed the Church and hampered the Great Commission thereby allowing the spread of additional heresies through Protestantism and apostasies as spread by Islam and Secularism.