How Does Decisionmaking at GOARCH Assemblies Work?

[ialmisry]

You are talking about making them "auxillary bishops," I believe. You need to talk alittle bit more to explain how this would be a disaster for the CP.

My understanding is that that pretty much was the system that existed prior in GOANSA, and the bishops here hated it.

 

[ialmisry]

This never happened though, Its fake Russian propaganda. You choose to eat it up.

So you are commemorating the bishop of the Vatican? The Phanar's association with schismatics and heretics goes deeper than previously thought then.

 

[ialmisry]

That's correct. It was a appeal to the EP and the EP handed down his judgement on the matter. The MP never felt compelled to do it on his own. But seeked approval.
Only proves my point that the EP is the last word on the matter.
That was then and this is now. So the same judgment doesn't stand as time and place have changed since then.

Not a single fact in all that verbage.

A new country has emerged.

Yeah, the Turkish Republic.

 

[ialmisry]

The reason he changed course is because in the interim Ukraine became an independent nation. So it fell back into the EP's jurisdiction.

Doesn't work that way. Look at the history of the Church of Greece. Hell, look at an ecclesiastical map:

 

[ialmisry]

They drew up there constitution in 1996. So the time line does fall into place.

The Soviet Union was dissolved December 26 1991. So you are wrong yet again.

 

[Menas17]

I am curious whether GOARCH is catechizing converts to believe that the "EP" is the supreme head of all Orthodox Christians

My previous GOARCH parish had 1 convert, so in the long run I don’t think it matters.

On the other hand my previous Antiochian parish has several catechumens and my current parish has baptized over 20 people…the numbers speak for themselves

 

[Menas17]

Not a single fact in all that verbage.

I’m constantly amazed that people on here try and argue/reason/address Tzimis. It is very obvious there is no point. At this point I am actually entirely convinced that they are in fact Patriarch Bartholomew himself.

I’m also starting to see how it was easy for Roman Catholics to believe, hook line and sinker, the papal nonsense that was made up. People will fall for anything.

 

[Menas17]

So you are commemorating the bishop of the Vatican? The Phanar's association with schismatics and heretics goes deeper than previously thought then.

Would not surprise me if Patriarch Bartholomew privately commemorated Francis.

He already commemorates schismatics, why not do the same for heretics.

 

[rakovsky]

They drew up there constitution in 1996. So the time line does fall into place.

If your country is using an old constitution, it does not mean that your country is not independent.

In 1997, after making the new constitution, P. Bartholomew reiterated his position in a letter that he accepted the MP's decision. So in 2018, he was considering the matter of an appeal by a clergyman (Filaret) whom he already declared schismatic.

 

[rakovsky]

As one who’s been on the scene for decades, I see the bad state of relations here since winter 2018 is just the solidification of episcopal and communal relations already present. Bp. Tikhon Fitzgerald of San Francisco, who preceded Abp. Benjamin had already established a chill toward Metr. Gerasimos’ antecedent Bp. Anthony.

In the Northeast/Rust Belt, I recall a lot of Greek and particularly Antiochian students being at the Antiochian village's OCF conference about 10 years ago. I don't want to make it sound like relations have been worse than they are.

 

[rakovsky]

My understanding is that that pretty much was the system that existed prior in GOANSA, and the bishops here hated it.

Didn't GOANSA last from 1921-1996? They put up with that system for so many years, so I guess it won't wreck their jurisdiction in terms of membership or financial loss.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Where would that monastery be? if they are nearly all-English why don’t Elder E.’s monasteries use some of their material?

Back in the day, I believe that St. Gregory Palamas Monastery's English-language materials came from one source, Fr. Seraphim Dedes (who is no longer with the monastery, working instead with the Archdiocese). His translations can sometimes have questionable turns of phrase (speaking of Christ's "ungamic" conception, "divine liftoff" for the ascension as if He were in a rocket, "shatterproof" shields as if they were cookware, etc.), and furthermore the materials he produced are incomplete. Many prosomoia and canons remain unmetered, many idiomela remain uncomposed, and many texts simply remain untranslated. He also does not have music of the sort that monastics would typically employ for feasts (long kekgragaria, long pasapnoaria, long doxastika, long doxologies, and so on). For people following the typical usages of Philotheou, I'd imagine not having access to complete books and to appropriate festal materials is simply not an option, and the questionable and inconsistent quality of the translations does not help with their adoption either.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Also, regarding the lack of suitable liturgical materials in the English language, I can speak a bit from personal experience that having services all in English with the existing corpus of materials inevitably results in sacrifices of the quality of the service. When no composition exists for a particular idiomelon, one is stuck making it up extemporaneously, which will never be as good as something composed by a good composer; when no metered translation of a set of prosomoia exists, one is stuck making it up, and the musical similarity between the prosomoia (which is by design) is completely obliterated. There is also then almost no distinction between the music for a great feast, the music for a Sunday, and the music for a simple weekday. In many parishes, it is judged that the sacrifices are worth it, but I can see why monastics might judge otherwise.

 

[Fr. George]

It would cause some upset in GOARCH but maybe not amount to a disaster. I typically underestimate the cynicism of GOA clergy and their ability to simply suck it up, knowing which side of their bread is buttered.

Uh, this introduction doesn't inspire much confidence in what is to follow. Any change away from the current model (unless it involves greater authority in the Eparchial Synod and its members) would be a step away from traditional ecclesiology - especially a move to "revert" the Metropolises to Diocese. They all meet the criteria of Metropolises (large in size and scope, centered in major metropolitan areas, etc.), and in fact a few should probably have Diocese within them (covering large rural areas, with a local Bishop who answers to the local Metropolitan).

But to my mind the generational flip-flop from Iakovos’ time when they were just called Bishops of the Exarchate to the post-Iakovos current situation of calling them Metropolitans requiring their Turkish citizenship (with frequent expensive visits to Istanbul with their entourages to keep their citizenship current) to serve on the Synod Endemousa and which renders the American Synod a moot entity, I think, back to making an exarchial synod of them again now that they trust the Abp. to function as the Phanar’s agent, will demonstrate how flimsy the GOA is and its utility not for American evangelism of Orthodoxy but as a tool of the Phanar to work its exigencies regardless of the necessities of evangelism.

There's hardly a shred of awareness in the above.

Pre-1977 charter, there was 1 Archbishop, assisted by auxiliary bishops. Said auxiliary bishops had titular sees (in modern-day Turkey) and served at the pleasure of the Archbishop (who first had to receive permission to use them from the EP). They could act in his name, but only at his direction and under his authority. They lived in their respective Districts and performed pastoral ministry, but 99% of administrative things went through NY.

The 1977 charter & updates turned the Archdiocesan Districts into Diocese, with a ruling bishop as their head. We did have the odd ecclesial pattern of commemorating both the local bishop and the Archbishop (which, properly, should only happen when said Local Bishop was presiding), but in all other matters the local bishop was a true ruling bishop - able to ordain, assign, discipline, consecrate, etc. The Diocese had their own registries, chancellors, administrative structures, responsibilities, and freedom to direct the ministries (provided they stayed in line with the Regulations and Charter). The formed a synod, which about the same strengths and limitations as the present synod. The difference was that as Bishops (not Metropolitans or Archbishops) they couldn't serve on the Patriarchal Synod (and wouldn't have anyway, as at the time the EP Synod was only comprised of the local hierarchs).

The 2003 update to turn the Diocese into Metropolises allowed the diocesan hierarchs to have Auxiliary bishops of their own, to allow a more robust hierarchical presence within their Metropolises, and it allowed them (with said promotion) to serve on the Patriarchal Synod, which the EP was then open to. It did not require the acquisition of Turkish citizenship - this was a later development, and was entirely optional - but it was a measure to allow more Hierarchs to become eligible for election to the Patriarchal See. Some of our Hierarchs indeed petitioned for (and received) their citizenship, but many did not. It also allowed the local Eparchial Synod to raise itself in status - but generally there wasn't a lot of change with regards to what it could and couldn't do. Nominations still came from the US but elections were still done by the EP synod, governance changes still had to be ratified by the EP Synod, etc.

There was a fear that the promotion to Metropolitans/Metropolises was going to foster a "I'm going above the Archbishop's head to the Patriarchate" environment - which partly happened, but not to the widespread way that was feared. But what they didn't anticipate was a Metropolitan going entirely rogue and rejecting what even the Eparchial Synod passed, which became problematic - this is what the new Archbishop appears to want to curb. (That, and it looks like he wants to appoint Metropolitans who don't meet the current Charter's requirements for US service before election.)

 

[Menas17]

…Add the Metr. of SF to your list of places where GOARCH clergy (and laity taught by them) form a world of ethnic church life unto themselves.

That’s unfortunate to hear as that has not been my experience (albeit limited), in the SF Metropolis. Though I will say I am only familiar with one of the parishes in the Portland metro area and the one in Alaska. Both great parishes with great priests.

Also, on one than more occasion Metropolitan Gerasimos has responded to a personal email of mine with concerns I had.

Sad to hear this is the case behind closed doors.

 

[Menas17]

Nominations still came from the US but elections were still done by the EP synod, governance changes still had to be ratified by the EP Synod, etc.

What good is there in even putting names forward if the Synod is just going to put in whoever they want. You can’t tell me that Archbishop Elpidohphoros was the preferred candidate of the American people

 

[Tzimis]

The Soviet Union was dissolved December 26 1991. So you are wrong yet again.

Country never changed names.

 

[Tzimis]

Doesn't work that way. Look at the history of the Church of Greece. Hell, look at an ecclesiastical map:

I always loved your picture illustrations.
Just because you draw a line in the sand doesn't make you different than the one on the other side.

 

[Tzimis]

Not a single fact in all that verbage.

Why? You find it difficult to understand that people just don't want to be a part of a corrupt government?
Look at Texas. its on the fringes of doing the same thing.

 

[Cavaradossi]

What good is there in even putting names forward if the Synod is just going to put in whoever they want. You can’t tell me that Archbishop Elpidohphoros was the preferred candidate of the American people

That’s just silly. Since when was the selection of bishops a democratic process?

 

[Ariend]

They drew up there constitution in 1996. So the time line does fall into place.

Ukraine has been an independent nation since 1991. The 1996 constitution marked the transformation of Ukraine's government into a semi-presidential republic, not its independence.

 

[Ariend]

Look at Texas. its on the fringes of doing the same thing.

How is Texas a corrupt government? In fact it is one of the most moral states in America at the moment.

 

[rakovsky]

Ariend wrote:
"What good is there in even putting names forward if the Synod is just going to put in whoever they want. You can’t tell me that Archbishop Elpidohphoros was the preferred candidate of the American people"...

That’s just silly. Since when was the selection of bishops a democratic process?

First of all, Ariend's question is legitimate:
What is the point of having elections for a primate AS IF it's a real election if in reality the CP doesn't care about the elected candidate and picks an unpopular figure instead. In that case, the election just turns into a showy NO CONFIDENCE popular survey for the new CP-appointee.

To answer your question, in the OCA and MP, the Local Assembly is officially the supreme body and makes decisions like electing the primate of the church, as happened in the 1945 Russian patriarchal election, as I recall. The MP has officially had this system since the 1917 Local MP assembly that elected St Tikhon as the MP.

Peace.

 

[Tzimis]

How is Texas a corrupt government? In fact it is one of the most moral states in America at the moment.

Thats why I said Texas wants to seceded from the corrupt union.

 

[FULK NERA]

That’s unfortunate to hear as that has not been my experience (albeit limited), in the SF Metropolis. Though I will say I am only familiar with one of the parishes in the Portland metro area and the one in Alaska. Both great parishes with great priests.

Also, on one than more occasion Metropolitan Gerasimos has responded to a personal email of mine with concerns I had.

Sad to hear this is the case behind closed doors.

Metr. Gerasimos is an impeccable gentleman and a Christian, as is Abp. Elpidophoros. I would not want my critique of Greek Orthodox insularity to come across as personal animus against these men or to impugn their character. Many lay clergy are also quite decent and kind, and sincere. What I am bothered by is the way they look askance at their neighbor the OCA, which runs more churches than they do, which largely defines the middle ground of the historical presence of Orthodoxy on these shores, which has humbly condescended to adopt the language and social identity of Americans without compromising Tradition. I find among Greek clergy (that includes many not ethnically Greek) a lack of openness to the OCA as an organization doing the hard work of building a church for people of no particular origin, fulfilling the Great Commission and mirroring the work of the Lord to create the Holy Nation of Israel from some scattered survivors of civilizational collapse in Canaan.
The Greek American approach to building an archdiocese is to rely on readymade communities of Greek settlement (previously urban, now largely suburban) and their big earners called the Leadership 100 to gather very large sums of money to erect monumental temples in conspicuous locations, advertise them as the definitive (actually sole) expressions of Orthodox Church life and define the Orthodox way in the media as this quasi-megachurch thing that meets for two hours a week on Sunday mornings and hosts basketball, dance and language schools to keep members Greek the rest of the week. Also the requisite Greek Festival to get non-members to help them pay down their mortgage or otherwise make their bottom line. This large scale Greek Cultural Center approach to Orthodox liturgical life has the effect of marginalizing the worship component of the community in favor of ancillary ‘programs and ministries’. Yet despite all efforts to appeal to bourgeois sensibilities of educated Greeks, some 85% or 90% of descendants of Greek emigres shun these churches. So obviously, it only works for this remnant. Most Greeks are marrying out of church now so prospects for large parishes look dim in the near future.

Contrast the ethos above with the way OCA parishes are erected and do their work and you have two approaches to church life that don’t overlap. It’s common knowledge that the disparate approaches of GOA &OCA do not compete for parishioners because the cultures don’t resemble each other much. OCA parishes are on average more numerous than Greek parishes and have smaller congregations that put in more man-hours praying together than the larger Greek communities do, where arms-length affiliation is normative, seeing most parishioners participating monthly or semi-monthly. OCA attracts a different kind of worshipper, and encourages a deeper appreciation of Orthodox worship and theology. This isn’t universally true and there are many parishes that buck these trends, and even some places where the differences are not as evident. But GOARCH exists as a foreign-based organization that is not oriented primarily towards the spiritual needs of Americans, not even really of Greek Americans, but rather has become a bulwark of the Phanar in its tenuous situation in Istanbul.

Sincere GOA clergy are working at cross purposes to the needs of their flocks, as they are told by hierarchs to enlist their people in the conflict the Phanar embroils itself in. This conflict turns people away from the faith. Only the very wealthy Archons of the Order of St. Andrew really have a dog in that fight, as their families have for centuries. The OCA by contrast is fully neutral in regards to the Moscow-C’ple power struggle, just doing the unspectacular work of building a church in America.

 

[FULK NERA]

Uh, this introduction doesn't inspire much confidence in what is to follow. Any change away from the current model (unless it involves greater authority in the Eparchial Synod and its members) would be a step away from traditional ecclesiology - especially a move to "revert" the Metropolises to Diocese. They all meet the criteria of Metropolises (large in size and scope, centered in major metropolitan areas, etc.), and in fact a few should probably have Diocese within them (covering large rural areas, with a local Bishop who answers to the local Metropolitan).



There's hardly a shred of awareness in the above.

Pre-1977 charter, there was 1 Archbishop, assisted by auxiliary bishops. Said auxiliary bishops had titular sees (in modern-day Turkey) and served at the pleasure of the Archbishop (who first had to receive permission to use them from the EP). They could act in his name, but only at his direction and under his authority. They lived in their respective Districts and performed pastoral ministry, but 99% of administrative things went through NY.

The 1977 charter & updates turned the Archdiocesan Districts into Diocese, with a ruling bishop as their head. We did have the odd ecclesial pattern of commemorating both the local bishop and the Archbishop (which, properly, should only happen when said Local Bishop was presiding), but in all other matters the local bishop was a true ruling bishop - able to ordain, assign, discipline, consecrate, etc. The Diocese had their own registries, chancellors, administrative structures, responsibilities, and freedom to direct the ministries (provided they stayed in line with the Regulations and Charter). The formed a synod, which about the same strengths and limitations as the present synod. The difference was that as Bishops (not Metropolitans or Archbishops) they couldn't serve on the Patriarchal Synod (and wouldn't have anyway, as at the time the EP Synod was only comprised of the local hierarchs).

The 2003 update to turn the Diocese into Metropolises allowed the diocesan hierarchs to have Auxiliary bishops of their own, to allow a more robust hierarchical presence within their Metropolises, and it allowed them (with said promotion) to serve on the Patriarchal Synod, which the EP was then open to. It did not require the acquisition of Turkish citizenship - this was a later development, and was entirely optional - but it was a measure to allow more Hierarchs to become eligible for election to the Patriarchal See. Some of our Hierarchs indeed petitioned for (and received) their citizenship, but many did not. It also allowed the local Eparchial Synod to raise itself in status - but generally there wasn't a lot of change with regards to what it could and couldn't do. Nominations still came from the US but elections were still done by the EP synod, governance changes still had to be ratified by the EP Synod, etc.

There was a fear that the promotion to Metropolitans/Metropolises was going to foster a "I'm going above the Archbishop's head to the Patriarchate" environment - which partly happened, but not to the widespread way that was feared. But what they didn't anticipate was a Metropolitan going entirely rogue and rejecting what even the Eparchial Synod passed, which became problematic - this is what the new Archbishop appears to want to curb. (That, and it looks like he wants to appoint Metropolitans who don't meet the current Charter's requirements for US service before election.)

If I’m entirely unaware of specifics of recent developments of Archdiocesan structure I still got the gist of it correct. And you just called the former Abp. a rogue. Was it roguish of Demetrios to refuse to get behind the rogue actions of his Primate in Ukraine? Abp. Demetrios’ lack of enthusiasm for the new ecclesiology of the Phanar is the real reason he is scapegoated for the failures and fiduciary malfeasance of GOARCH. I am also aware that the election of the new Abp. completely steamrolled the process and sidelined input from the Archdiocese. It all adds up to an exarchate being run in a colonial manner with frequent takeovers and heavy handed power plays from the Phanar. I guess I just don’t fit the profile of a person who is fine with all this.

 

[FULK NERA]

What good is there in even putting names forward if the Synod is just going to put in whoever they want. You can’t tell me that Archbishop Elpidohphoros was the preferred candidate of the American people

would I lie to you? Of course no hierarch who cut his teeth among the American flock is going to be thus elevated. They ripped up the Charter for this reason.

 

[FULK NERA]

How is Texas a corrupt government? In fact it is one of the most moral states in America at the moment.

Please. The republican

Thats why I said Texas wants to seceded from the corrupt union.

there is no provision in the Constitution for such sedition. Texas is run in a rogue fashion by a very politically corrupt Republican Party that stoops to any crime to keep its tenuous hold on power as the state‘s populace shifts leftward.

 

[rakovsky]

Metr. Gerasimos read the EP missal enjoining reaction against Moscow among American parishes. He specifically told the gathering to carry this war to their communities.

So what specifically are they supposed to do? Just tell other Orthodox (OCA, AOCNA, GOARCH members) and tell them that the CP is like the Pope and the OCU is legitimate?
I haven't heard much from regular GOARCH people on this topic. Not many of them on this forum they have been defending the CP's new ecclesiology. Tsimis is practically the only one here parrotting the line.
R. Catholics might be happy to hear that GOARCH believes in primatial supremacy, but that undercuts EO arguments against papal supremacy, so it's not very helpful for interchurch dialogues.

On August 30, 2019 Abp. Elpidophoros met Greek clergy in Long Beach while on his Victory Tour. He told them at that time that the OCA would soon become part of GOARCH.
...
The news of Elpidophoros‘ speech was told me by a simple priest in GOA who was excited to share good news.

....
The CP "dissolving" the "Russian Exarchate of Western Europe" was the most immediately self-defeating self-serving measure that came to mind. I never heard much explanation of why the CP did this. It's as if they wanted to tamp down on "Russian" cultural organizations, but the result instead was most of the Exarchate leaving for the MP, and the CP allowing a competing remnant to stay under the CP with reduced powers.

I recall a conversation with a Romanian priest serving the Greeks here where he told me the OCA would soon become part of the Russian Orthodox Church again, because Putin.

It would take much more than the Russian government being authoritarian to make the OCA go under the Russian Church, based on history.

In 1945-1970, the Metropolia/OCA said that they wanted to be independent of Moscow, and this was a decision at an All-American Sobor/Council of the OCA. This decision was one of the two main reasons why in 1945 the MP confirmed its excommunication of the Metropolia. The other reason was that the OCA wanted to be allowed to criticize the Soviet government, whereas the MP was demanding that the OCA would not criticize it. Then in 1970, the MP acceded to the OCA's two positions.

The normal conclusion is that the Metropolia/OCA is more resilient on its desire to be able to criticize the Russian government and to have independence/autocephaly. And Stalin was more authoritarian than Putin, so.....

He may very well think that because Metr. Tikhon concelebrated, or invited him to tea that he now already owns all our churches.

Yeah.... individual parishes in the US are better off under the OCA's ecclesiology structure. Going under the CP would entail
1. GOARCH owns all our parish property (according to GOARCH's leadership's brief to the Supreme Court)
2. We are under the CP
3. The CP Eparchial synod can practically veto all our assembly decisions and our hierarchs' decisions.
4. We recognize the OCU as the only canonical church in Ukraine
5. Little transparency or accountability with funds to GOARCH/CP projects like the St. Nicholas Shrine that go missing.

To believe for a moment that the OCA would have anything to gain by becoming another ethnic (representing the American ethnos) satrapy languishing alongside the moribund Carpatho-Rusyn and Albanian dioceses here, shows sublime lack of insight and empathy.

It is hard to see where the OCA could even fit into the CP's US Church structure because it would be a matter of fitting (A) an "All-American" Church (the OCA) within (B) a structure (the CP's US structure) divided along ethnic lines.

(A) The OCA sees itself as a Church for America and as having Russian heritage, but the "Russian" component seems more historical (like how we had Sobors) and not thorough (the OCA people are to a big extent Ukrainian and Carpatho-Russian).

(B) The CP's structure on the other hand has a GOARCH Greek Church in the US with a lot of Greek language, plus Ukrainian, ACROD, and a new miniscule "Russian" CP jurisdiction in the US. It does not have an "American" Church to the degree that the OCA sees itself as. Abp. Elpidophoros it seems does not really countenance having American church per se, considering how much emphasis he is putting on Hellenism. Don't get me wrong, he sees GOARCH as being Greek-American. IMO, the OCA and GOARCH are both finding their way in the American landscape, but the OCA is putting more emphasis on being "American" (whatever that means) than GOARCH is.

Personally, I like it most when there is some ethnic component in the Church, like 1/3 of the service being in Greek or Slavonic. But when it comes to trying to fit the OCA into the CP's Church structure in the US, it's like fitting a square peg into a round hole, because the CP's structure here does not really countenance that.

The CP's attempted failed dissolution of the Russian Exarchate in Western Europe into the Greek metropolises in Europe shows how unrealistic and non-discerning the decisionmaking is on this kind of structural planning. Based on what the CP tried to do in Western Europe, it seems like GOARCH might try to make OCA parishes into GOARCH parishes, but based on Abp. Elpidophoros' visions of Hellenism for the US, he would probably try to grow the GOARCH parishes hellenistically at the expense of growth within the former OCA parishes.

It would actually make much more sense administratively for the GOARCH parishes to join the OCA, because the OCA does have a structure for ethnic parishes/sub-jurisdictions within the OCA's structure. For example, the OCA presents itself as an American Church with a structure set up for ethnic sub-jurisdictions like the Romanians, Bulgarians, etc. Theoretically, GOARCH, ACROD, and UOCC could fit within the OCA's structure for ethnic parishes/sub-jurisdictions with the structure and the new entrants remaining intact.

 

[Fr. George]

What good is there in even putting names forward if the Synod is just going to put in whoever they want.

You're not the only one saying that, publicly or privately.

You can’t tell me that Archbishop Elpidohphoros was the preferred candidate of the American people

Election of Archbishop is different for us than the election of Metropolitans. For Metros, the ballot is made by our Eparchial Synod and sent to Constantinople for the vote. For Abp, we can only advise, but they both nominate and elect in C'nople.

 

[FULK NERA]

So what specifically are they supposed to do? Just tell other Orthodox (OCA, AOCNA, GOARCH members) and tell them that the CP is like the Pope and the OCU is legitimate?
I haven't heard much from regular GOARCH people on this topic. Not many of them on this forum they have been defending the CP's new ecclesiology. Tsimis is practically the only one here parrotting the line.
R. Catholics might be happy to hear that GOARCH believes in primatial supremacy, but that undercuts EO arguments against papal supremacy, so it's not very helpful for interchurch dialogues.


....
The CP "dissolving" the "Russian Exarchate of Western Europe" was the most immediately self-defeating self-serving measure that came to mind. I never heard much explanation of why the CP did this. It's as if they wanted to tamp down on "Russian" cultural organizations, but the result instead was most of the Exarchate leaving for the MP, and the CP allowing a competing remnant to stay under the CP with reduced powers.



It would take much more than the Russian government being authoritarian to make the OCA go under the Russian Church, based on history.

In 1945-1970, the Metropolia/OCA said that they wanted to be independent of Moscow, and this was a decision at an All-American Sobor/Council of the OCA. This decision was one of the two main reasons why in 1945 the MP confirmed its excommunication of the Metropolia. The other reason was that the OCA wanted to be allowed to criticize the Soviet government, whereas the MP was demanding that the OCA would not criticize it. Then in 1970, the MP acceded to the OCA's two positions.

The normal conclusion is that the Metropolia/OCA is more resilient on its desire to be able to criticize the Russian government and to have independence/autocephaly. And Stalin was more authoritarian than Putin, so.....


Yeah.... individual parishes in the US are better off under the OCA's ecclesiology structure. Going under the CP would entail
1. GOARCH owns all our parish property (according to GOARCH's leadership's brief to the Supreme Court)
2. We are under the CP
3. The CP Eparchial synod can practically veto all our assembly decisions and our hierarchs' decisions.
4. We recognize the OCU as the only canonical church in Ukraine
5. Little transparency or accountability with funds to GOARCH/CP projects like the St. Nicholas Shrine that go missing.




It is hard to see where the OCA could even fit into the CP's US Church structure because it would be a matter of fitting (A) an "All-American" Church (the OCA) within (B) a structure (the CP's US structure) divided along ethnic lines.

(A) The OCA sees itself as a Church for America and as having Russian heritage, but the "Russian" component seems more historical (like how we had Sobors) and not thorough (the OCA people are to a big extent Ukrainian and Carpatho-Russian).

(B) The CP's structure on the other hand has a GOARCH Greek Church in the US with a lot of Greek language, plus Ukrainian, ACROD, and a new miniscule "Russian" CP jurisdiction in the US. It does not have an "American" Church to the degree that the OCA sees itself as. Abp. Elpidophoros it seems does not really countenance having American church per se, considering how much emphasis he is putting on Hellenism. Don't get me wrong, he sees GOARCH as being Greek-American. IMO, the OCA and GOARCH are both finding their way in the American landscape, but the OCA is putting more emphasis on being "American" (whatever that means) than GOARCH is.

Personally, I like it most when there is some ethnic component in the Church, like 1/3 of the service being in Greek or Slavonic. But when it comes to trying to fit the OCA into the CP's Church structure in the US, it's like fitting a square peg into a round hole, because the CP's structure here does not really countenance that.

The CP's attempted failed dissolution of the Russian Exarchate in Western Europe into the Greek metropolises in Europe shows how unrealistic and non-discerning the decisionmaking is on this kind of structural planning. Based on what the CP tried to do in Western Europe, it seems like GOARCH might try to make OCA parishes into GOARCH parishes, but based on Abp. Elpidophoros' visions of Hellenism for the US, he would probably try to grow the GOARCH parishes hellenistically at the expense of growth within the former OCA parishes.

It would actually make much more sense administratively for the GOARCH parishes to join the OCA, because the OCA does have a structure for ethnic parishes/sub-jurisdictions within the OCA's structure. For example, the OCA presents itself as an American Church with a structure set up for ethnic sub-jurisdictions like the Romanians, Bulgarians, etc. Theoretically, GOARCH, ACROD, and UOCC could fit within the OCA's structure for ethnic parishes/sub-jurisdictions with the structure and the new entrants remaining intact.

Just a couple things, not replying to all your points.
The Russian Exarchate (‘Rue Daru’) was dissolved at the insistence of Metr. Emmanuel who was galled (sic) that they had rejected his autocratic leadership and preferred Bp. Jean. The Rue Daru is a bellwether for any and all Orthodox jurisdictions. Since then the EP (what’s this odd formation ‘CP’, besides a Muscovite trope? It’s a bit much because Ecumincal is still the official name universally recognized) has set up a parallel jurisdiction, or its seed within the Czech—Slovak lands to demonstrate its lack of bounds since the Ukrainian Tomos’ promulgation, that defines the Phanar’s competence to interfere in the workings of every jurisdiction anywhere (like it does in the Church of Greece) and to establish parallel church structures in their ecclesiastical territories. This is perhaps the main reason thatthe only hierarchs who ratify the 2018 Ukraine Tomos are Greeks whose churches are fairly dependent on the Greek State and the Phanar.

The Moscow Patriarchate did seek to rescind the Tomos they feeely gave in 1970. As early as the 1990s under Patr. Alexei they exerted pressure on Metr. Theodosius to give up the autocephaly. Apr. Leonid Kishkovsky of blessed memory told me this personally at an AAC. When Metr. Jonah was the Primate, Moscow had great hopes he’d unilaterally hand the Tomos back, and this was not a vain hope as Metr. Jonah said in my presence publicly on the street outside the Cathedral in Washington, DC that regarding autocephaly, every card was on the table. But countervailing these efforts is the resilience of our loyal leaders who do not kowtow to any foreign heads either in Russia or Turkey. When the OCA‘s foreign relations head, Abp. Alexander was in Moscow on one occasion, the Patriarchate tried to impress and intimidate him. This literal Russian Prince (Golitzin) did not blench and rebuffed their attempted bullying resorting to dialogue in the language preferred by all Russian nobility, that is French. The Russians did not press further.

GOARCH dreams of consuming the OCA though some coup or a rogue Metropolitan’s unilateral capitulation (which would be uncanonical and lack force) show lack of insight into the history, culture and sentiments of American Orthodox. The blindness and self deception of Abp. Elpidophoros about the OCA demonstrates how cut off from American reality he and they are. They live in a bubble that protects the illusion of the Phanar’s relevance and competence. They remind me of the CIA who couldn’t predict the fall of the Shah of Iran. Their grasp of the situation on these shores is hampered by colonialist self-conceit, that they matter in ways they cannot to a world that has moved well beyond the Empire which fell to the Turk six centuries ago. The favor the Patriarch of Constantinople enjoyed as Rûm Milet Başı (εθνάρχης) giving the Ecumenical Throne control of Greece, Romania, the Balkans and Anatolia is not something they can easily let go.

 

[Fr. George]

If I’m entirely unaware of specifics of recent developments of Archdiocesan structure I still got the gist of it correct.

Eh, not really. You're persistently getting enough wrong that I'm debating the utility of continuing to respond.

And you just called the former Abp. a rogue. Was it roguish of Demetrios to refuse to get behind the rogue actions of his Primate in Ukraine? Abp. Demetrios’ lack of enthusiasm for the new ecclesiology of the Phanar is the real reason he is scapegoated for the failures and fiduciary malfeasance of GOARCH.

I have never in my life called the former Archbishop a rogue. Go back and re-read.

I am also aware that the election of the new Abp. completely steamrolled the process and sidelined input from the Archdiocese. It all adds up to an exarchate being run in a colonial manner with frequent takeovers and heavy handed power plays from the Phanar.

"Frequent takeovers" is funny, considering that we've had tenures of 3 and 20 years since Iakovos retired. Not exactly musical chairs.

I guess I just don’t fit the profile of a person who is fine with all this.

I'm not sure what the profile is of someone who is fine with all of it.

 

[rakovsky]

I guess I just don’t fit the profile of a person who is fine with all this.

I'm not sure what the profile is of someone who is fine with all of it.

Tzimis

 

[Menas17]

Based on what the CP tried to do in Western Europe, it seems like GOARCH might try to make OCA parishes into GOARCH parishes

I would give that an almost 0% chance of happening. Maybe it’s just the two OCA diocese I am familiar with (South, Alaska), but, there is absolutely zero desire among the laity (and yea this is a pretty common topic) to join with the GOA. I’ll second this for the Antiochians/ROCOR (the two jurisdictions I frequent).

Patriarch Bartholomew & Archbishop Elpidohphoros are so wildly unpopular there no other jurisdictions clamoring to go under them.

 

[Tzimis]

Tzimis

As the new leader of Rome "future leader". I will consider this as an approve on your application for a cabinet seat.

 

[rakovsky]

I would give that an almost 0% chance of happening. Maybe it’s just the two OCA diocese I am familiar with (South, Alaska), but, there is absolutely zero desire among the laity (and yea this is a pretty common topic) to join with the GOA. I’ll second this for the Antiochians/ROCOR (the two jurisdictions I frequent).

I never heard this as a serious topic among OCA laity. Maybe at coffee hour at an OCA parish I visited, someone read a third hand rumor about it, and was commenting to me that they thought it was a very bad idea.

The CP got some defrocked ROCOR and schismatic "ROCOR-A" clergy though after the 2018 turmoil began:
"GREEK ARCHDIOCESE CREATES SLAVIC VICARIATE WITH MULTIPLE DEFROCKED AND SUSPENDED CLERICS"

Greek Archdiocese creates Slavic vicariate with multiple defrocked and suspended clerics

All of the Vicariate clergy are either canonically defrocked or suspended or associated with the defrocked or suspended clergy.

orthochristian.com

I wonder how the CP parishes in the US are treating the handful of KP parishes in the US now that the CP has recognized the KP hierarchs.

 

[rakovsky]

I wonder how the CP parishes in the US are treating the handful of KP parishes in the US now that the CP has recognized the KP hierarchs.

The KP has a cathedral in Bloomingdale, IL, considering itself as part of the "Vicariate" of the KP in the US and considers KP Filaret as their hierarch:

Hierarchy

St. Andrew Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate located in Bloomingdale, IL

en.standrewuoc.com

Here is a list of their US KP Vicariate parishes on the Vicariate website:

VICARIATE OF THE UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH KYIVAN PATRIARCHATE Philadelphia

VICARIATE OF THE UKRIANIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH KYIVAN PATRIARCHATE IN THE USA & CANADA

www.uockpusa.org

KP US Patriarchal cathedral is here, not on the list above:

About Us — St. Nicholas Patriarchal Orthodox Cathedral

www.stnicholaseoc.org

I don't know what KP Filaret's status is in the eyes of Constantinople, because after P. Bartholomew recognized KP Filaret as a metropolitan and not a patriarch, and recognized the OCU, KP Filaret left the OCU. Then a Ukrainian court announced that the KP was dissolved, but then KP Filaret removed his signature from the dissolution:

On 20 June 2019, a small number of Pro-Filaret UOC (former UOC-KP) members—including Filaret—left the OCU after a local UOC-KP council.
...

On 11 November 2019, the Court of Appeal of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv confirmed legality of the process of liquidation of the UOC-KP.[66][67]
...
In January 2020, the UOC-KP announced that Filaret had officially withdrawn his signature from 15 December 2018 act of dissolution of the UOC-KP.

Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ialmisry]

Country never changed names.

Wrong. Again.

 

[ialmisry]

Why? You find it difficult to understand that people just don't want to be a part of a corrupt government?

Look at Texas. its on the fringes of doing the same thing.

Texas is nowhere near suicide and self -destruction. Nor delusion.

 

[rakovsky]

Since then the EP (what’s this odd formation ‘CP’, besides a Muscovite trope?

It refers to the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate (CP), as in

CHURCH CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY 20201

Thur 6 St. Photios the Great (†891 Patriarch of CP). Sts. Barsanuphrius & John of Gaza

SOURCE: Saints Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church

https://www.stsch.org/files/Calendars/2020/2020-Feb-v.2.pdf

And:

On 20 May 2008, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko met with a delegation of the Constantinople Patriarchate (CP) of the Orthodox Church. At the beginning of the meeting, Yushchenko expressed his gratitude for the efforts of the CP to consolidate Orthodox Churches.

SOURCE: Religious-Information Service of Ukraine

And:

First, it is a common Greek reverence for the Ecumenical Patriarchate. For us, the Slavs, this is just the honorary name of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (CP), the first one in the Diptych...

...we have been independent from the CP for almost 6 centuries. Moreover, even during the period of our unrecognized autocephaly, the Patriarchs of Constantinople lived largely on Russian donations. Therefore, they were more dependent on us than we were on them. And this continued until the revolution in 1917. Even before the breakup after the Union of Florence, although we were subordinate to the CP, it was too far from us by the standards of that time…

The CP looks quite different in the eyes of the Greeks: since the time of Emperor Constantine, the bishops of Constantinople have been influential throughout the Church. After the Arab conquest, the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria looked to Constantinople as their only source of aid. After his capture by the Turks, the Patriarch of Constantinople received exclusive rights in the Ottoman Empire, including influence over the rest of the Patriarchates.

https://raskolam.net/en/31340-misce-konstantinopolya-svitoglyadnij-rozriv-grekiv-ta-slovyan

When did the "EP" first become called the "EP?" Certainly it would have to be after the Schism with Rome, since Rome considered itself the "EP". The term "EP" could be interpreted to claim "Ecumenical jurisdiction" over the whole "Ecumene" of the "Church Catholic".