Rue Daru to hold Archdiocesan Assembly

[Mor Ephrem]

What would be funny is for the MP to issue Rue Daru a tomos of autocephaly.

Literal lol.

+1

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Antioch is Russian-friendly on a political (both church politics and secular politics) level, but not on a ritual level. I can't see them joining Antioch and maintaining Russian liturgical style.

Whether Antioch would accept them I cannot say, but I don’t think they’d have as much of a problem with Russian liturgics in Russian tradition parishes in their jurisdiction as you seem to think.

 

[Gorazd]

The only way I can think of to make Western Europe canonical is for us to have an Orthodox Bishop of Rome?

Probably that would be a Bishop (or even autocephalous patriarch) of Venice, out of politeness towars the RCC, and because the oldest post-1054 parish is there.

Whether Antioch would accept them I cannot say, but I don’t think they’d have as much of a problem with Russian liturgics in Russian tradition parishes in their jurisdiction as you seem to think.

Interesting point. Could you give examples of such parishes, please?

 

[biro]

The "Orthodox Bishop of Rome" is a fantasy.

 

[hecma925]

The "Orthodox Bishop of Rome" is a fantasy.

True.  It's not like the heresiarch is changing anytime soon.

 

[ICXCNIKA]

The "Orthodox Bishop of Rome" is a fantasy.

True.  It's not like the heresiarch is changing anytime soon.

Heresiarchs. If we cannot reestablish a Roman Patriarchate that it will be forever noncanonical whether the OCA enters the scene or not.

 

[Iconodule]

Interestingly, the Archdiocese's communique quotes Metropolitan John Zizioulas: Do a council or synod form a structure located above the bishop? The answer to this question can only be negative from an ecclesiastical point of view. Ecclesiologically speaking, there is nothing superior to the bishop in the Church.

I've wondered before how such statements from Metropolitan John can be reconciled with the ecclesiology currently being blurted out by various EP spokesmen.

 

[IreneOlinyk]

Interestingly, the Archdiocese's communique quotes Metropolitan John Zizioulas: Do a council or synod form a structure located above the bishop? The answer to this question can only be negative from an ecclesiastical point of view. Ecclesiologically speaking, there is nothing superior to the bishop in the Church.

I've wondered before how such statements from Metropolitan John can be reconciled with the ecclesiology currently being blurted out by various EP spokesmen.

Perhaps it would be wise to look at the context and actual words of the quote from Metropolitan John Zizioulas.  For example, a council can vote to depose one specific bishop.

 

[kijabeboy03]

Are there other realistic options?

We'll see, I guess. I have no idea.

Well, Istanbul has turned many friends into enemies.  So, Antiochians, POC, or the Church of Czechia and Slovakia would be  justice.

POC (and Antioch I believe too) is neutral with an inclination (not strong support) toward Moscow. We have had really good realtions with Phanar and I doubt it would be changed dramatically in a few months.

Do you think the POC would accept parishes from rue daru?

There is no reason they should be part of the POC.

Why? They're under Constantinople now, there's no reason for that either...and doesn't the Polish Orthodox Church already have a diocese in Brazil?

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Whether Antioch would accept them I cannot say, but I don’t think they’d have as much of a problem with Russian liturgics in Russian tradition parishes in their jurisdiction as you seem to think.

Interesting point. Could you give examples of such parishes, please?

I don’t know of any specific parishes like this.

 

[Antonis]

A good portion of their Church in North America uses Russian music and, in older churches, liturgical furniture.

 

[Asteriktos]

Thread title reminded me of the letter of Met. Philaret.

And to which I then added: but tell me, what sort of “common flock” could I have with the Parisians, when their head, Archbishop Georgy, while passing by our Memorial Church in Brussels, spits in its direction with the words — “Ugh, the Karlovci contagion!”...

But I, I didn’t get into an altercation with her, but only thought to myself: “Ugh, the Exarchate contagion”... For she was one of the “Parisians”...

-- Letter To Abbess Magdalena

Good times, good times...

 

[Volnutt]

liturgical furniture.

That's what irishpilgrim calls women, isn't it?

 

[Gorazd]

A good portion of their Church in North America uses Russian music and, in older churches, liturgical furniture.

Can you give examples, please? The North American Antiochian liturgies I see on Youtube use Byzantine / Antiochian music.

 

[Agabus]

A good portion of their Church in North America uses Russian music and, in older churches, liturgical furniture.

Can you give examples, please? The North American Antiochian liturgies I see on Youtube use Byzantine / Antiochian music.

Every Antiochian church I've been to has had at least one Russian tune in the liturgy, including the parish that was predominantly Lebanese. My experience may be strictly regional. But since the Russians were historically under the Antiochians in the U.S., I wouldn't be surprised to know their influence was there in some of the northeastern churches.

 

[Gorazd]

Why? They're under Constantinople now, there's no reason for that either...

There are two reasons
1) History, Communism in Russia
2) Constantinople's ecclesiology seeing itself as default wherever no canonical jurisdiction has a caninonical territory recognised by Constantinople

 

[Gorazd]

Every Antiochian church I've been to has had at least one Russian tune in the liturgy, including the parish that was predominantly Lebanese.

Would they accept a full Russian-style liturgy? In Ben Lomond they didn't.
Any parish under Antioch having that now?

 

[biro]

Furniture?

 

[Agabus]

Every Antiochian church I've been to has had at least one Russian tune in the liturgy, including the parish that was predominantly Lebanese.

Would they accept a full Russian-style liturgy? In Ben Lomond they didn't.
Any parish under Antioch having that now?

Ben Lomond wasn't a normal situation.

The parish I currently attend (in the diocese of Miami) seems to draw from all sorts of musical traditions, including using American settings. It was a little more Byzantine when the bishop showed up, but if that's what the boss man knows, that's what you use.

 

[Agabus]

I'm actually holding out for a Paris Exarchate Outside France missionary parish to start nearby.

 

[Dominika]

But OCAOA is just as silly ecclesiologically as ROCOR.

+1

I don't think adding to more jurisdictional confusion helps; a.

Exactly.

Europe is not America.

Yeah, and what's the sense of jurisdiction of the "new" countries/continent over the "old" one?

 

[Gorazd]

Yeah, and what's the sense of jurisdiction of the "new" countries/continent over the "old" one?

First of all, Common history / mindset of OCA and the Exarchate. Also, Orthodoxy in France has a similar age to Orthodoxy in North America. So it's not an issue of old vs new.

Secondly, the Exarchate wants to continue existing as a diocese together and be in communion with both EP and MP. That would be possible under the OCA. Where else would that be possible? Probably any other jurisdiction would break them up and make them join local dioceses. Well, maybe except Alexandria, which doesn't have a local diocese in Western Europe.

 

[Dominika]

Yeah, and what's the sense of jurisdiction of the "new" countries/continent over the "old" one?

First of all, Common history / mindset of OCA and the Exarchate. Also, Orthodoxy in France has a similar age to Orthodoxy in North America. So it's not an issue of old vs new.

It is an issue, as it's abouthe roots, so it can't be turn upside down. And Orthodoxy was in France earlier, ofc, tehre was a huge pause, but still...
Common mindset - maybe (history definitely no, maybe similar), but it doesn't mean exarchate, being so European, should be part of an American Church. It doesn't make any sense.

Secondly, the Exarchate wants to continue existing as a diocese together

I'm not so sure.

and be in communion with both EP and MP.

That's true. But rather for every Church except the main "characters" of the conflict.

Well, maybe except Alexandria, which doesn't have a local diocese in Western Europe.

And that's good it doesn't have.

 

[ialmisry]

Interestingly, the Archdiocese's communique quotes Metropolitan John Zizioulas: Do a council or synod form a structure located above the bishop? The answer to this question can only be negative from an ecclesiastical point of view. Ecclesiologically speaking, there is nothing superior to the bishop in the Church.

I've wondered before how such statements from Metropolitan John can be reconciled with the ecclesiology currently being blurted out by various EP spokesmen.

Perhaps it would be wise to look at the context and actual words of the quote from Metropolitan John Zizioulas.  For example, a council can vote to depose one specific bishop.

ONLY for cause.
The cause cannot be "the primus sine paribus says so."

 

[ialmisry]

A good portion of their Church in North America uses Russian music and, in older churches, liturgical furniture.

Can you give examples, please? The North American Antiochian liturgies I see on Youtube use Byzantine / Antiochian music.

A lot of Russian melodies are used in English. Even in Arab parishes. Especially those who have choirs instead of cantors.

 

[Iconodule]

Interestingly, the Archdiocese's communique quotes Metropolitan John Zizioulas: Do a council or synod form a structure located above the bishop? The answer to this question can only be negative from an ecclesiastical point of view. Ecclesiologically speaking, there is nothing superior to the bishop in the Church.

I've wondered before how such statements from Metropolitan John can be reconciled with the ecclesiology currently being blurted out by various EP spokesmen.

Perhaps it would be wise to look at the context and actual words of the quote from Metropolitan John Zizioulas.  For example, a council can vote to depose one specific bishop.

ONLY for cause.
The cause cannot be "the primus sine paribus says so."

Exactly. Conciliarity is not dictatorship by committee, let alone by a primate.

 

[ialmisry]

Why? They're under Constantinople now, there's no reason for that either...

There are two reasons
1) History, Communism in Russia
2) Constantinople's ecclesiology seeing itself as default wherever no canonical jurisdiction has a caninonical territory recognised by Constantinople

Your point 2) emphasis kijaboy's point that there is no reason.

 

[Iconodule]

Interestingly, the Archdiocese's communique quotes Metropolitan John Zizioulas: Do a council or synod form a structure located above the bishop? The answer to this question can only be negative from an ecclesiastical point of view. Ecclesiologically speaking, there is nothing superior to the bishop in the Church.

I've wondered before how such statements from Metropolitan John can be reconciled with the ecclesiology currently being blurted out by various EP spokesmen.

Perhaps it would be wise to look at the context and actual words of the quote from Metropolitan John Zizioulas.  For example, a council can vote to depose one specific bishop.

If you actually care to look at the actual words of Metropolitan John, you can do so here. You will see that Archbishop Jean reflects the Metropolitan of Pergamon's thought accurately. One thing that sticks out is the statement, "every kind of Synod that excludes the presence of bishops (unless there is an unavoidable historical necessity) from participating in a Synod, is considered a serious deviation."

What unavoidable historical necessity was there  to exclude Archbishop Jean- who is accused of no wrongdoing- from the synod deciding the status of his archdiocese? In fact, not only excluding him from the synod but not even consulting with him or advising him that the question was about to be raised? So, by the standard of Metropolitan John Zizioulas, widely acknowledged as one of the EP's pre-eminent living theologians, what the synod of Constantinople did was a grave abuse and deviation.

 

[Samn!]

It's important to realize that from the EP's perspective, Abp Jean isn't canonically the bishop of his diocese, but rather the archbishop of some random nominal see who has been given the task of administrating the archdiocese.

 

[Iconodule]

Right. Hence, Bishop Gregory of Nyssa is now Metropolitan Gregory of Nyssa but ACROD does not become ACROM.

 

[Samn!]

Right. Hence, Bishop Gregory of Nyssa is now Metropolitan Gregory of Nyssa but ACROD does not become ACROM.

Which effectively means that its people also have no recourse if Constantinople tries to force a major change on them.

 

[Iconodule]

Right. Hence, Bishop Gregory of Nyssa is now Metropolitan Gregory of Nyssa but ACROD does not become ACROM.

Which effectively means that its people also have no recourse if Constantinople tries to force a major change on them.

Well, they have one advantage in that the church buildings are owned by the congregation, not the diocese. I can't say for sure but I don't think the people would generally like the idea of being dissolved into GOArch.

 

[Justin Kolodziej]

Interestingly, the Archdiocese's communique quotes Metropolitan John Zizioulas: Do a council or synod form a structure located above the bishop? The answer to this question can only be negative from an ecclesiastical point of view. Ecclesiologically speaking, there is nothing superior to the bishop in the Church.

I've wondered before how such statements from Metropolitan John can be reconciled with the ecclesiology currently being blurted out by various EP spokesmen.

Perhaps it would be wise to look at the context and actual words of the quote from Metropolitan John Zizioulas.  For example, a council can vote to depose one specific bishop.

If you actually care to look at the actual words of Metropolitan John, you can do so here. You will see that Archbishop Jean reflects the Metropolitan of Pergamon's thought accurately. One thing that sticks out is the statement, "every kind of Synod that excludes the presence of bishops (unless there is an unavoidable historical necessity) from participating in a Synod, is considered a serious deviation."

What unavoidable historical necessity was there  to exclude Archbishop Jean- who is accused of no wrongdoing- from the synod deciding the status of his archdiocese? In fact, not only excluding him from the synod but not even consulting with him or advising him that the question was about to be raised? So, by the standard of Metropolitan John Zizioulas, widely acknowledged as one of the EP's pre-eminent living theologians, what the synod of Constantinople did was a grave abuse and deviation.

My bishop and new auxiliary bishop aren't on the Holy Synod either. In fact it's a very limited selection.

How you get there I'm not sure, but it is highly likely there are other considerations besides the wisdom and holiness of the bishops chosen that are at work.

 

[Iconodule]

A certain portion of the synod is rotated periodically, so it's possible that your bishop can be on there later. For example Metropolitan Savas of Pittsburgh was on there until early this year, as I recall. But of course that doesn't justify excluding from deliberations bishops directly affected by them.

 

[Gorazd]

Well, they have one advantage in that the church buildings are owned by the congregation, not the diocese. I can't say for sure but I don't think the people would generally like the idea of being dissolved into GOArch.

It could be done the other way around: Bringing Greek parishes in the geographical core area of ACROD under ACROD's jurisdiction. And in a second step, making it officially the geographical diocese for that area.

 

[Iconodule]

Well, they have one advantage in that the church buildings are owned by the congregation, not the diocese. I can't say for sure but I don't think the people would generally like the idea of being dissolved into GOArch.

It could be done the other way around: Bringing Greek parishes in the geographical core area of ACROD under ACROD's jurisdiction. And in a second step, making it officially the geographical diocese for that area.

That would never happen. Even in the ACROD heartland of Pennsylvania the Greek parishes outnumber them.

 

[Gorazd]

That would never happen. Even in the ACROD heartland of Pennsylvania the Greek parishes outnumber them.

Why not? I think they wouldn't mind being under a Greek bishop.

 

[Iconodule]

That would never happen. Even in the ACROD heartland of Pennsylvania the Greek parishes outnumber them.

Why not? I think they wouldn't mind being under a Greek bishop.

The idea of ACROD with a majority of Greek parishes just doesn't make sense. It would effectively be the same as dissolving ACROD into GOArch.

 

[Justin Kolodziej]

That would never happen. Even in the ACROD heartland of Pennsylvania the Greek parishes outnumber them.

Why not? I think they wouldn't mind being under a Greek bishop.

The idea of ACROD with a majority of Greek parishes just doesn't make sense. It would effectively be the same as dissolving ACROD into GOArch.

What doesn't make sense is having the Greek parish under one bishop, the Ukrainian parish under another, and the Carpatho-Russian parish under a third, all in one city. Provided GOARCH gets renamed the three should be consolidated, but only when their bishops agree it's time to do so.

 

[Gorazd]

The idea of ACROD with a majority of Greek parishes just doesn't make sense. It would effectively be the same as dissolving ACROD into GOArch.

That's why it would make sense. The effect is similar, but it feels smoother to ACRODers: they keep their cathedral, current bishop, current structures. They'll be joined by local Greeks and Ukrainians. Finally it's going to become the EP Diocese of Johnstown in a process of creating non-Ethnic EP jurisdictions in North America.