How Does Decisionmaking at GOARCH Assemblies Work?

[rakovsky]

Trying to sit on two chairs? Well-well...

Hurrah,

The OCA naturally sympathizes with the MP over the EP. But further, the OCA cannot recognize the OCU because the MP has been excommunicating those who concelebrate with the OCU. If the EP were to excommunicate the MP, or the MP were to excommunicate the OCA, the OCA would be stuck because the EP considers the OCA to be only a part of the MP and doesn't recognize the OCA as autocephalous. That is, the EP only recognizes the OCA as legitimate to the extent both that the EP recognizes the MP and that the MP recognizes the OCA.

Nor can the OCA recognize the EP as the canonical jurisdiction in the Americas, and nor can it recognize the EP as the vertical supreme authority of the orthodox world. This is because the OCA by definition considers itself the canonical jurisdiction for the US whereas the EP considers itself and its subordinates ( GOARCH and ACROD and the UOC USA-EP) to be the only jurisdiction with canonical rule over the US.

The upshot is that although the OCA sympathizes naturally with the MP's positions, the resulting Venn diagram of interchurch relations means that the OCA is to some extent dependent on the MP in its relations with the EP, but not the other way around. This, the OCA is not truly sitting on two churchs. It is sitting only on the chair that the MP gave it.

 

[Tzimis]

It sounds like you oppose the "First without equals" anti-Orthodox ideology. I am glad to hear that, Tzimis.

Unfortunately, Abp. Elpidophoros whom the EP appointed over GOARCH takes this position:
THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH: FIRST WITHOUT EQUALS by Metropolitan Elpidophoros (Lambriniadis) of Bursa

THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH: FIRST WITHOUT EQUALS by Metropolitan Elpidophoros (Lambriniadis) of Bursa

Earlier today Orthodoxy in Dialogue published Joseph Zheng’s When Andrew Reigned Alone on the Earth: Ecclesial Implications of the Ukrainian Tomos. In it he draws our attention to the followi…

orthodoxyindialogue.com

And the EP posted the "First without equals" document on its website:

Ecumenical Patriarchate

The Patriarch of Constantinople website says:



In the photo they are showing him raised on a platform above the other Patriarchs like he is the Pope. Patriarch Kyril is in the photo. I think Patriarch Kyril does not agree with this description of Orthodoxy ecclesiology.

I think its safe to say that all EO churches received there orthodoxy from the EP and if we treasure apostolic succession, as a result we have to respect where its foundation lay.
Lets say we have a multi generational family. grand father, father and son. Does the son or father neglect the grandfathers opinion?
No, If anything you will always go to the grandfather for his blessing. Is it a Primacy or the last word? Yes and no
Would you want that blessing? Most would say yes. Does it break the unit apart? Probably not
What it does, is make all of them look incompetent an weaker than before.
There is always a danger when over stepping boundaries. We see that with the Pope.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

I think its safe to say that all EO churches received there orthodoxy from the EP and if we treasure apostolic succession, as a result we have to respect where its foundation lay.
Lets say we have a multi generational family. grand father, father and son. Does the son or father neglect the grandfathers opinion?
No, If anything you will always go to the grandfather for his blessing. Is it a Primacy or the last word? Yes and no
Would you want that blessing? Most would say yes. Does it break the unit apart? Probably not
What it does, is make all of them look incompetent an weaker than before.

Where was Constantinople's patriarch before the 3rd century?

 

[Tzimis]

Where was Constantinople's patriarch before the 3rd century?

The church was in the catacombs and didn't have a world stage. Probably would have died if it wasn't for st Eleni. AKA st. Helena

 

[rakovsky]

I think its safe to say that all EO churches received there orthodoxy from the EP

Jerusalem is called the Mother of All Churches in Orthodoxy.

 

[FULK NERA]

GOARCH's 2018 assembly took votes on the scope of powers to give its Archdiocesan Council and took votes on similar issues, and the 2020 assembly report that I linked to says that the decisions by the 2018 council were all implemented. Doesn't this mean that GOARCH's membership at large has decisionmaking power over some important issues regarding the rulership and management of GOARCH?

I don’t think any real input from ´οι πολλοί gets up to real decision making. The Phanar ignored the candidates the Archdiocese put forth canonically and put their smiley Turkish citizen in there.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

The church was in the catacombs and didn't have a world stage. Probably would have died if it wasn't for st Eleni. AKA st. Helena

At the least, Rome, Antioch, and Jerusalem had bishoprics from apostolic times. Constantinople was the last patriarch and was formed, as canon 28 says, because it was the new Imperial City.

 

[rakovsky]

At the least, Rome, Antioch, and Jerusalem had bishoprics from apostolic times. Constantinople was the last patriarch and was formed, as canon 28 says, because it was the new Imperial City.

Good point.
If Constantinople gets to tell Moscow what to do because it was Moscow's father, could medieval Rome and current day Antioch tell Constantinople what to do because they were its predecessors?

That is not how autocephaly works.

 

[rakovsky]

I don’t think any real input from ´οι πολλοί gets up to real decision making. The Phanar ignored the candidates the Archdiocese put forth canonically and put their smiley Turkish citizen in there.

A lot of unpleasant facts like this one about the EP's style of rule I kind of remember but file it away as one more arbitrariness and abuse of authority by the EP that I have little control over.

 

[Tzimis]

At the least, Rome, Antioch, and Jerusalem had bishoprics from apostolic times. Constantinople was the last patriarch and was formed, as canon 28 says, because it was the new Imperial City.

Please list a record of there existence. A blanket staement is no good to anyone.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

Please list a record of there existence. A blanket staement is no good to anyone.

Read Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 3

 

[Tzimis]

Read Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 3

I'll save you the work. There is no record. So the church officially started with the Rome and the EP is the successor to that..

 

[Tzimis]

I guess you haven't read it yourself.

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].

 

[FULK NERA]

A lot of unpleasant facts like this one about the EP's style of rule I kind of remember but file it away as one more arbitrariness and abuse of authority by the EP that I have little control over.

They way they treat the American Archdiocese, upon which the Phanar depends utterly for funds, shows little concern for rules internal to the archdiocese, which are all written according to the Phanar’s wishes, yet they abrogate them as they please. The Charter has been in abeyance for a year now, for instance. The pension fund was looted to pay for the St. Nicholas Shrine that will cost more than $100,000,000 and hold some 150 people. Over the last decade the membership and actual attendance demographics show marked decline. Like the Phanar itself, GOARCH is a jurisdiction in search of relevance. The real function of the exarchate is to honor and support the Phanar, not extend the Gospel for its own sake and the souls of Americans.
The OCA will be last one standing.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

I guess you haven't read it yourself.

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].

Where is Constantinople here? Also you've never heard the Church teaching that St. Peter was bishop of Antioch and that st. James was bishop of Jerusalem?

 

[rakovsky]

the church officially started with the Rome and the EP is the successor to that..

The Church officially started with Jerusalem.

Even if it started with Rome, then your model would mean that Rome was correct in the medieval period that it could tell everyone what to do.

Mark of Ephesus complained that the Roman Catholics called the Pope the "father" of the rest of Christianity.

In your message earlier, you said that Constantinople was the father of the rest of Christianity and should be obeyed.

Now you are saying that this is true of Rome.

This is not Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[rakovsky]

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].

Some western Christian theologians like Irenaeus talked this way, but this was not the dogma of the Eastern theologians.

Furthermore, if Irenaeus was correct, then Constantinople should have been obeying Rome up through the medieval period.

I think that you don't believe that Constantinople should have been always obeying medieval Rome.

 

[rakovsky]

Where is Constantinople here?

He and some other current EP apologists take the line that Rome had reign over all Christianity and now that Rome is not in Orthodoxy, Constantinople has rule over Christianity. However, this is not the traditional EO line. Otherwise Rome would have the power to order Constantinople to do whatever Rome wanted, and Constantinople would have to agree with Rome on everything, like all administrative canons.

It comes across as ad hoc apologetics to give the Patriarch in Istanbul the utmost powers. If they were in 1000 AD, I think that they would not be saying to obey Rome whenever possible. Of course, I could be wrong because there were times when the EP did apostasize and join Unia under Rome.

 

[rakovsky]

Over the last decade the membership and actual attendance demographics show marked decline. Like the Phanar itself, GOARCH is a jurisdiction in search of relevance. The real function of the exarchate is to honor and support the Phanar, not extend the Gospel for its own sake and the souls of Americans.

As I recall, a ROCOR priest who had been in GOARCH around the 1960's told me that there was a time when GOARCH clergy told people to join the Episcopalian Church if they lived in places where there was no Orthodox church and turned non-EOs like Episcopalians away who wanted to convert to Orthodoxy. I read within the last few weeks that 15% of all Americans of Greek heritage belong to the EO Churches today. I would prefer for that statistic to be a mistaken underestimate.

 

[rakovsky]

I'll save you the work. There is no record. So the church officially started with the Rome and the EP is the successor to that..

Probably you don't realize, Tzimis, that these kinds of rather mistaken, simplistic, exaggerated pro-EP statements make the EP side in these debates look worse.

Probably there is not really a good way to make the EP side look good and Orthodox. Probably the best you could do is talk about different HONORS that the EP has held over centuries, like OFTEN (but not always) chairing ecumenical councils. But the EP position is vertical supremacy in general in the style of medieval popes. I don't know how much the EP's decision to take this ideological position has to do with Pat. Bartholomew having studied under Roman Catholic educational institutions in past decades or with his friendly inter-Church relations with Rome. Maybe his new ideology is just based on crude, cynical power plays.

 

[rakovsky]

I guess you haven't read it yourself.

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].

Where is Constantinople here?

He doesn't seem capable of recognizing his own mistake, but rather does ongoing ad hoc acrobatics to defend the EP.

So first he said that Constantinople is the parent of all churches and that people need to look to Constiantinople as one does to a parent.
Then you cited Irenaeus referring to the tradition of the apostles of the church founded at Rome and saying that every Church must agree with Rome.
So instead of admitting that you gave opposite evidence, he said that it supports his position, and his apologetic is that YES Rome did have power over the rest of the church, and NOW Constantinople has it because Rome is out.

In short, the EP complained that the medieval Pope claimed power over the rest of Christianity and schismated with Rome over this issue, and now the EP is claiming power over all Christians because it says that Rome's powers that the EP had rejected have transferred to the EP.

It's as if Tzimis said that he is the boss of you and me, so we rejected friendship with him, and now that he is out of the picture, I say that I am your boss because Tzimis' powers have transferred to me.

 

[Ariend]

As I recall, a ROCOR priest who had been in GOARCH around the 1960's told me that there was a time when GOARCH clergy told people to join the Episcopalian Church if they lived in places where there was no Orthodox church....

GOARCH still holds this position today.
According to a GOARCH priest who does online Q&A's that I sometimes listen to, he said if there are no Orthodox churches near where you live, then you should be attending a Protestant or Catholic church every Sunday and become a part of that community, and you would just make a pilgrimage to the nearest place you can get Orthodox Communion on a cyclical basis (once every year, a few times every year, etc.). He also said that if you are attending a Catholic church because there are no Orthodox churches near where you live, then because of oikonomia, you would be able to take communion in that Catholic church. He states this as standard Orthodox practice, not just his own opinion.

 

[rakovsky]

GOARCH still holds this position today.
According to a GOARCH priest who does online Q&A's that I sometimes listen to, he said if there are no Orthodox churches near where you live, then you should be attending a Protestant or Catholic church every Sunday and become a part of that community, and you would just make a pilgrimage to the nearest place you can get Orthodox Communion on a cyclical basis (once every year, a few times every year, etc.).

The EP has a theological statement to that effect, the THYATEIRA CONFESSION.
My sense is that the Orthodox world today does not have a consensus on Orthodox attending non-EO churches like that under certain limited, temporary conditions. I don't have a strong opinion on the topic if we were talking about the RC Church because they have claims to apostolic succession and teach an objective presence in the Eucharist.

BUT I do see it as a problem if GOARCH churches were in practical terms discouraging non-EOs from converting. And it IS a big problem if only 15% of Greek Americans are the max of those of them who attend EO churches.

 

[Tzimis]

He doesn't seem capable of recognizing his own mistake, but rather does ongoing ad hoc acrobatics to defend the EP.

So first he said that Constantinople is the parent of all churches and that people need to look to Constiantinople as one does to a parent.
Then you cited Irenaeus referring to the tradition of the apostles of the church founded at Rome and saying that every Church must agree with Rome.
So instead of admitting that you gave opposite evidence, he said that it supports his position, and his apologetic is that YES Rome did have power over the rest of the church, and NOW Constantinople has it because Rome is out.

In short, the EP complained that the medieval Pope claimed power over the rest of Christianity and schismated with Rome over this issue, and now the EP is claiming power over all Christians because it says that Rome's powers that the EP had rejected have transferred to the EP.

It's as if Tzimis said that he is the boss of you and me, so we rejected friendship with him, and now that he is out of the picture, I say that I am your boss because Tzimis' powers have transferred to me.

Your making a few false assertions. Jerusalem was first but the church died there and was a reestablished by the EP. Most every scholar on the subject will agree with me.
Secondly, according to the canons the EP had equal status as the bishop of rome.
That is why the EP's flag has a double headed eagle. The bishop of Rome had the territory to the west and the EP had the eastern portions.
This is because the world was not fully known at the time.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

Your making a few false assertions. Jerusalem was first but the church died there and was a reestablished by the EP. Most every scholar on the subject will agree with me.
Secondly, according to the canons the EP had equal status as the bishop of rome.
That is why the EP's flag has a double headed eagle. The bishop of Rome had the territory to the west and the EP had the eastern portions.
This is because the world was not fully known at the time.

Which scholars? Also the double headed eagle symbolized the intertwinement of the empire and the Church not Rome and the EP. Rome wasn't even in Byzantium proper for the majority of the Empire's existence.

 

[Tzimis]

Which scholars? Also the double headed eagle symbolized the intertwinement of the empire and the Church not Rome and the EP. Rome wasn't even in Byzantium proper for the majority of the Empire's existence.

This is false. As is the rest, but let tackle one thing at a time.
When the western bishop Pope leo III, Crowned Charlemagne.
The west started a competing empire called. The Holy Rome empire.
Similar to how the MP is crowning Putin.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

This is false. As is the rest, but let tackle one thing at a time.
When the western bishop Pope leo III, Crowned Charlemagne.
The west started a competing empire called. The Holy Rome empire.
Similar to how the MP is crowning Putin.

The Western side of the empire fell to the Goths and other invading Germanic tribes before the coronation of Charlemagne.

 

[Tzimis]

The Western side of the empire fell to the Goths and other invading Germanic tribes before the coronation of Charlemagne.

Yes, but it was a military problem. When the pope switch side he fractured the Roman empire by crowning a new emperor and that was when the west formed a competing church and empire.
Originally the Popes allegiance was with the eastern emperor. The pope enjoyed the benefit of being the wests ruler as well.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

Yes, but it was a military problem. When the pope switch side he fractured the Roman empire by crowning a new emperor and that was when the west formed a competing church and empire.
Originally the Popes allegiance was with the eastern emperor. The pope enjoyed the benefit of being the wests ruler as well.

The pope's allegiance was to Eastern Emperor but he didn't even live within the Empire?

 

[FULK NERA]

As I recall, a ROCOR priest who had been in GOARCH around the 1960's told me that there was a time when GOARCH clergy told people to join the Episcopalian Church if they lived in places where there was no Orthodox church and turned non-EOs like Episcopalians away who wanted to convert to Orthodoxy. I read within the last few weeks that 15% of all Americans of Greek heritage belong to the EO Churches today. I would prefer for that statistic to be a mistaken underestimate.

When the new Abp. was installed he spoke to the GOARCH clergy by conference call. One of the topics he was quick to broach was the need to open the churches in all regards to non-Greeks. This shows a change and growth of mindset from his infamous address to HCHC grads back in 2009, (when he was only a teacher) complaining about non-Hellene HDHC grads being ordained and yet incapable of sharing the wealth of Hellenism, which they don’t have, in their parishes.
Despite all the emphasis on Greekness that is the ideology of GOARCH, some 90% of descendants of Greek emigres to the US disdain Orthodoxy, and the exarchate continues to shrink. Now as Abp., Elpidophoros sees that chasing after Greek-Americans who’ve already proven their lack of interest is pointless, and that all comers (especially in clergy) must be made to feel welcome and valued. The preference for and privileging of the Greek language and culture is not going away, this is abundantly clear, and the consistent denial of anything that leads to autocephaly is too. Hierarchs for the exarchate will all be ethnically Greek and preferably Turkish citizens so that they may be able to take a seat on the synod endemousa of Constantinople. But lay and low-ranking clergy coming from τα εθνοι ought to be encouraged, because Greeks here aren’t interested in sufficient numbers.

Please translate the following word: τα εθνοι. Thanks. --Ainnir

 

[chris]

Fulk Nera,

Do you have a link to that "infamous address"? I'd like to read it.

Thanks!

When the new Abp. was installed he spoke to the GOARCH clergy by conference call. One of the topics he was quick to broach was the need to open the churches in all regards to non-Greeks. This shows a change and growth of mindset from his infamous address to HCHC grads back in 2009, (when he was only a teacher) complaining about non-Hellene HDHC grads being ordained and yet incapable of sharing the wealth of Hellenism, which they don’t have, in their parishes.

 

[Tzimis]

When the new Abp. was installed he spoke to the GOARCH clergy by conference call. One of the topics he was quick to broach was the need to open the churches in all regards to non-Greeks. This shows a change and growth of mindset from his infamous address to HCHC grads back in 2009, (when he was only a teacher) complaining about non-Hellene HDHC grads being ordained and yet incapable of sharing the wealth of Hellenism, which they don’t have, in their parishes.
Despite all the emphasis on Greekness that is the ideology of GOARCH, some 90% of descendants of Greek emigres to the US disdain Orthodoxy, and the exarchate continues to shrink. Now as Abp., Elpidophoros sees that chasing after Greek-Americans who’ve already proven their lack of interest is pointless, and that all comers (especially in clergy) must be made to feel welcome and valued. The preference for and privileging of the Greek language and culture is not going away, this is abundantly clear, and the consistent denial of anything that leads to autocephaly is too. Hierarchs for the exarchate will all be ethnically Greek and preferably Turkish citizens so that they may be able to take a seat on the synod endemousa of Constantinople. But lay and low-ranking clergy coming from τα εθνοι ought to be encouraged, because Greeks here aren’t interested in sufficient numbers.

The need of Turkish citizens that are Christians is a necessary for the EP to exist.
Under Turkish law the EP has to be a Turkish citizen.
So Its a constant struggle for the EP to exist due to this. The turks are trying to extinguish Turkish citizens that are Christians. Its not exactly friendly environment.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

The need of Turkish citizens that are Christians is a necessary for the EP to exist.
Under Turkish law the EP has to be a Turkish citizen.
So Its a constant struggle for the EP to exist due to this. The turks are trying to extinguish Turkish citizens that are Christians. Its not exactly friendly environment.

Maybe the EP should move to a place more relevant for itself.

 

[MarkosC]

The pope's allegiance was to Eastern Emperor but he didn't even live within the Empire?

Complicated question, at least in Italy. (Gaul/France and Hispania are simple: Franks/Visigoths in, Roman rule out)

Odoacer threw out the last Western Emperors (yes plural) and made himself King of Italy, nominally recognizing Constantinople as the emperor. He also kept the Roman Senate under similar allegiance. Constantinople sent Theodoric (who grew up in Constantinople and was nominally a patrician there) to kick him out and be "their" King of Italy. When his line was usurped, St Justinian took the opportunity to directly rule.

From there, (eastern) Roman rule in north-central Italy became increasingly indirect and in the hand of various dukes, under the increasingly weak control of Ravenna. The Pope was functionally superior to the Duke of Rome and eventually eclipsed him (it was very commons for the seat of bishops to eclipse the seat of dukes at the time, especially since they were selected from the same class of people)


The final straw was iconoclasm. By this time the empire's economic heartlands of Syria and Egypt were gone, North Africa was gone (Heraclius' seizure of the throne was basically done with North African troops), and much of the Balkans were occupied by Slavic tribes - the Empire was holding on tenuously to Anatolia and Italy. Leo the Isarurian got some level of control over this, and then of course subsequently banned icons (allegedly following the example of Caliph Yazid II a few years before). I think we are all well aware of how that went down in Constantiople (and among Christians in the new Muslim world).

In Italy, iconoclasm was badly received. Leo the Isaurian sent troops to force iconoclasm on the locals and he failed. They revolted against Constantinople, and it was in this year that Rome/Popes started minting coins for the "Republic of St Peter" vice on the authority of the Emperor. Even further chaos ensued with Lombards, Popes, local dukes, local military families, the Exarch at Ravenna all fighting each other, until the Frankish King Pepin came in and "gave" the exarchy to the Pope.


As far as the EP moving, there has been talk of moving to Thessaloniki (probably the most natural, and following the example of the various Antiochian patriarchs in going to a subordinate Metropolitanate after the original see was nonviable), Switzerland (a neutral country) and probably other places. They not surprisingly want to cling to their original city, especially since the remnants of former times (e.g. the cathedral and chancery offices) are still there. (even if said cathedral is a mosque and IIRC the chancery arenow various tombs for important figures)


Finally, I am also curious about the Greek american figures. That said, I would not be shocked if the number of "Greeks attending weekly service in ancestors heritage jurisdiction" is not that disimilar to 2nd generation Russians, etc., or for that matter Italians, Poles, Irish, Germans, heck even Anglos. (ECUSA, PC-USA, etc.)

 

[Ariend]

Maybe the EP should move to a place more relevant for itself.

Good point; the Patriarchate of Antioch moved from Antioch to Damascus, so why can't the Ecumenical Patriarchate move as well? And just like the Church of Antioch, they can still call themselves the Church of Constantinople.

 

[rakovsky]

Your making a few false assertions. Jerusalem was first but the church died there and was a reestablished by the EP. Most every scholar on the subject will agree with me.

We were discussing whether Constantinople has the right to tell all Christians what to do by virtue of its being old as a Church.

You are trying to say that Jerusalem doesn't count as the oldest church because its hierarchy "died" there and it got a replacement appointed by Constantinople. But.... there were times when the Patriarch of Constantinople was removed by other patriarchs, like Pat. Nestorius, and so others had to be appointed there. So this becomes a nonsequitor. Just because a more ancient church's hierarchy was reestablished someplace does not mean that the church at the place ceased to become earlier, older or more ancient.

Further, I am skeptical that at any point there were no bishops in the territory of the Church of Jerusalem. I know that in the 2nd century, the city lost its bishops and so Caesarea, a place still in Judea/Palestine, sent the city of Jerusalem its bishops. The Church of Jerusalem, headed by its current patriarch, continues to be called the "Mother of All Churches."

 

[rakovsky]

GLORIA TIBI writes:

Also the double headed eagle symbolized the intertwinement of the empire and the Church not Rome and the EP. Rome wasn't even in Byzantium proper for the majority of the Empire's existence.

TZIMI WRITES:
This is false. As is the rest, but let tackle one thing at a time.
When the western bishop Pope leo III, Crowned Charlemagne.
The west started a competing empire called. The Holy Rome empire.

Yes, but it was a military problem. When the pope switch side he fractured the Roman empire by crowning a new emperor and that was when the west formed a competing church and empire.
Originally the Popes allegiance was with the eastern emperor. The pope enjoyed the benefit of being the wests ruler as well.

Even if the Pope of Rome only switched allegiance to the Western Roman Empire under Charlemagne, this would be in 800 AD, meaning that Gloria correctly indicated that the Pope and the city of Rome would not have been under Byzantium proper for most of the Byzantine Empire's existence.

Charlemagne (2 April 742/747/748–28 January 814) was crowned Imperator Romanorum (“Emperor of the Romans”) by Pope Leo III on 25 December 800. SOURCE: ItalianArtSociety.org

The Byzantine Empire lasted from what, about 400 AD to the mid 15th century AD? That would be 1100 years. From 800 AD to c. 1450 (the end of the empire) is 650 years. So Gloria Tibi would be correct even by the parameters that you are giving to prove him wrong.

 

[rakovsky]

But lay and low-ranking clergy coming from τα εθνοι ought to be encouraged, because Greeks here aren’t interested in sufficient numbers.

Please translate the following word: τα εθνοι. Thanks. --Ainnir

FYI, it's a Greek term meaning "the nations".
I think that FULK means that GOARCH realizes that it's best to at least encourage clergy to join GOARCH who are from other nationalities than the Greeks. In Judaism, the term "goyim", meaning literally "nations" and translated into English typically as "gentiles", is commonly used to refer to other nationalities besides the Jews. On a side note, sometimes the word "goyim" in Hebrew in the Bible can just mean "nations" and not necessarily the non-Jewish ones. It can refer to nations of the world in the Bible including the Jewish or Israelite nation.

I welcome FULK to correct me if he meant something else.

 

[rakovsky]

Good point; the Patriarchate of Antioch moved from Antioch to Damascus, so why can't the Ecumenical Patriarchate move as well? And just like the Church of Antioch, they can still call themselves the Church of Constantinople.

Your suggestion makes sense realistically.

 

[Tzimis]

Hurrah,

The OCA naturally sympathizes with the MP over the EP. But further, the OCA cannot recognize the OCU because the MP has been excommunicating those who concelebrate with the OCU. If the EP were to excommunicate the MP, or the MP were to excommunicate the OCA, the OCA would be stuck because the EP considers the OCA to be only a part of the MP and doesn't recognize the OCA as autocephalous. That is, the EP only recognizes the OCA as legitimate to the extent both that the EP recognizes the MP and that the MP recognizes the OCA.

Nor can the OCA recognize the EP as the canonical jurisdiction in the Americas, and nor can it recognize the EP as the vertical supreme authority of the orthodox world. This is because the OCA by definition considers itself the canonical jurisdiction for the US whereas the EP considers itself and its subordinates ( GOARCH and ACROD and the UOC USA-EP) to be the only jurisdiction with canonical rule over the US.

The upshot is that although the OCA sympathizes naturally with the MP's positions, the resulting Venn diagram of interchurch relations means that the OCA is to some extent dependent on the MP in its relations with the EP, but not the other way around. This, the OCA is not truly sitting on two churchs. It is sitting only on the chair that the MP gave it.

I think you effectively put your foot in yout mouth with this comment.
If the OCA is dependent on the MP. Why isn't the MP dependent on the EP in the same fashion?
Weren't you the one claiming that once Autocephaly is achieved, you can ignore the one that gave it to you?