SDMPNS's Concerns about Metropolitan Jonah

[Innocent]

Bishop Mark and Metropolitan Jonah are the future. I have concerns about Met. Jonah but Bishop Mark has shown himself to be a kind Godly man

Wow, why the swipe at Met Jonah? On the one hand you say he is the future of Orthodoxy then you say some Bishop Mark has shown himself to be holy and Met Jonah gives you concerns. What in his life gives you concern and makes you feel the need to say it here?

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Bishop Mark and Metropolitan Jonah are the future. I have concerns about Met. Jonah but Bishop Mark has shown himself to be a kind Godly man

Wow, why the swipe at Met Jonah? On the one hand you say he is the future of Orthodoxy then you say some Bishop Mark has shown himself to be holy and Met Jonah gives you concerns. What in his life gives you concern and makes you feel the need to say it here?

Do you really want to discuss that here?  I can open another thread for discussing SDMPNS's concerns with Metropolitan Jonah if you want.

 

[username!]

Bishop Mark and Metropolitan Jonah are the future. I have concerns about Met. Jonah but Bishop Mark has shown himself to be a kind Godly man

Wow, why the swipe at Met Jonah? On the one hand you say he is the future of Orthodoxy then you say some Bishop Mark has shown himself to be holy and Met Jonah gives you concerns. What in his life gives you concern and makes you feel the need to say it here?

Do you really want to discuss that here?  I can open another thread for discussing SDMPNS's concerns with Metropolitan Jonah if you want.

Sounds like a good title for a thread to me Peter the Aleut!

 

[Innocent]

Bishop Mark and Metropolitan Jonah are the future. I have concerns about Met. Jonah but Bishop Mark has shown himself to be a kind Godly man

Wow, why the swipe at Met Jonah? On the one hand you say he is the future of Orthodoxy then you say some Bishop Mark has shown himself to be holy and Met Jonah gives you concerns. What in his life gives you concern and makes you feel the need to say it here?

Do you really want to discuss that here?  I can open another thread for discussing SDMPNS's concerns with Metropolitan Jonah if you want.

I was just curious why he felt the need to take a swipe at Met Jonah who from all I've read and herd about him is a truly Godly man. In anycase your right it most likely should not be discussed in this thread.

I would like to say I hope nobody thinks my post implies Bishop Mark is not Godly. I was not implying that.

 

[VirSpeluncaeOrthodoxae]

Bishop Mark is indeed a godly man, and my pastor has found him to be a very effective bishop in every sense of the word. He is too good a bishop to be treated like he has.

 

[ozgeorge]

"It would be better for humanity and the worse for the fishes if all OCA & AOAA Bishops and Priests were thrown into the sea."- discuss.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Bishop Mark and Metropolitan Jonah are the future. I have concerns about Met. Jonah but Bishop Mark has shown himself to be a kind Godly man

Wow, why the swipe at Met Jonah? On the one hand you say he is the future of Orthodoxy then you say some Bishop Mark has shown himself to be holy and Met Jonah gives you concerns. What in his life gives you concern and makes you feel the need to say it here?

Do you really want to discuss that here?  I can open another thread for discussing SDMPNS's concerns with Metropolitan Jonah if you want.

I was just curious why he felt the need to take a swipe at Met Jonah who from all I've read and herd about him is a truly Godly man. In anycase your right it most likely should not be discussed in this thread.

Now that I've opened up a new thread just for this discussion, feel free to speak your mind.  Remember, though, the rule of civility.

Personally, I don't read SDMPNS's statement of concern as a backhanded slap at His Beatitude.  Note the language of "I have concerns about...".  This makes very clear that SDMPNS is merely speaking his/her opinion and is not alleging any facts.  As such, I'm actually curious to know what SDMPNS thinks about His Beatitude JONAH (the primate of my church) and what has him/her so concerned.  Addressing Innocent's initial reply and defense of His Beatitude's holiness, I think it quite possible that SDMPNS may be concerned about things relating to Metr. Jonah's skills as an administrator and/or other such factors totally unrelated to the depth of his commitment to Christ and His holy Church.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

"It would be better for humanity and the worse for the fishes if all OCA & AOAA Bishops and Priests were thrown into the sea."- discuss.

Why scare all the sharks away? :laugh:

 

[Innocent]

Personally, I don't read SDMPNS's statement of concern as a backhanded slap at His Beatitude.  Note the language of "I have concerns about...".  This makes very clear that SDMPNS is merely speaking his/her opinion and is not alleging any facts.  As such, I'm actually curious to know what SDMPNS thinks about His Beatitude JONAH (the primate of my church) and what has him/her so concerned.  Addressing Innocent's initial reply and defense of His Beatitude's holiness, I think it quite possible that SDMPNS may be concerned about things relating to Metr. Jonah's skills as an administrator and/or other such factors totally unrelated to the depth of his commitment to Christ and His holy Church.

I was overjoyed when I herd he was elected and I still am. He was true monastic and Holy man and thats what the OCA needs!

 

[serb1389]

"It would be better for humanity and the worse for the fishes if all OCA & AOAA Bishops and Priests were thrown into the sea."- discuss.

We just had a priest from the EP make some HUGE statements about Met. Jonah and Met. Philip at our school.  When the text becomes available i'll make sure to put it up for all.  

I think i'll try to summarize some of his statements:  

Met. Jonah has said that "no one accepts the primacy of the EP based on Canon 28 of Chalcedon" (paraphrase).  The response question was:  how come then several patriarchates were created and funneled through the EP.  The Moscow Patriarchate was created from the EP, who GAVE the OCA their "autocephaly"...So, the very case of his church is based on the primacy of the EP.  

Also, he mentioned that Met. Maximos of Sardis has written a book describing the entire history of useage of this canon THROUGHOUT history.  The priest from the EP recommended it.  There were other things, but maybe we could start here.  

 

[Innocent]

"It would be better for humanity and the worse for the fishes if all OCA & AOAA Bishops and Priests were thrown into the sea."- discuss.

We just had a priest from the EP make some HUGE statements about Met. Jonah and Met. Philip at our school.  When the text becomes available i'll make sure to put it up for all.  

I think i'll try to summarize some of his statements:  

Met. Jonah has said that "no one accepts the primacy of the EP based on Canon 28 of Chalcedon" (paraphrase).  The response question was:  how come then several patriarchates were created and funneled through the EP.  The Moscow Patriarchate was created from the EP, who GAVE the OCA their "autocephaly"...So, the very case of his church is based on the primacy of the EP.  

Also, he mentioned that Met. Maximos of Sardis has written a book describing the entire history of useage of this canon THROUGHOUT history.  The priest from the EP recommended it.  There were other things, but maybe we could start here.  

I want to see where this quote from Met Jonah came from and see the context.

 

[ialmisry]

"It would be better for humanity and the worse for the fishes if all OCA & AOAA Bishops and Priests were thrown into the sea."- discuss.

We just had a priest from the EP make some HUGE statements about Met. Jonah and Met. Philip at our school.  When the text becomes available i'll make sure to put it up for all.  

I think i'll try to summarize some of his statements:  

Met. Jonah has said that "no one accepts the primacy of the EP based on Canon 28 of Chalcedon" (paraphrase).  The response question was:  how come then several patriarchates were created and funneled through the EP.  The Moscow Patriarchate was created from the EP, who GAVE the OCA their "autocephaly"...So, the very case of his church is based on the primacy of the EP.  

Nonsense.  It's based on Constantinople's autocephaly, but not it's primacy: related, but not identifcal things, and if he is towing the standard EP line of late, the distintion is useful to keep in mind.  I'lll be gettin to this eventually, God willing, on the Autocephaly thread.

Btw, in reference to that, yes, several patriarchates were created and funneled through the EP, from territory belonging to Rome: Bulgaria, Czech and Slovak lands (depending on how much continuity you want to stress from St. Methodius, and how much we want to stress that a core of the present Church are WRO Latin converts, gone Eastern), Serbia (the land, but not it seems the people had a history under Rome), Romania, Albania.  Even Greece was originally Roman territory.

In any case, wasn't Met. Jonah going to the Phanar?  Should make interesting talk over tea and Turkish delights.

Also, he mentioned that Met. Maximos of Sardis has written a book describing the entire history of useage of this canon THROUGHOUT history.  The priest from the EP recommended it.  There were other things, but maybe we could start here.  

Sardis, I think that's near Pergamon.  In fact, having been to both places (have their Metropolitans?), I know they are. :

What's the book title?

 

[Pedro]

"It would be better for humanity and the worse for the fishes if all OCA & AOAA Bishops and Priests were thrown into the sea."- discuss.

Who's this from?  Just a discussion topic, or did someone actually say this?  And what in the world would be the rationale behind it?

Met. Jonah has said that "no one accepts the primacy of the EP based on Canon 28 of Chalcedon" (paraphrase).  The response question was:  how come then several patriarchates were created and funneled through the EP.  The Moscow Patriarchate was created from the EP, who GAVE the OCA their "autocephaly"...So, the very case of his church is based on the primacy of the EP.

Wow, that's a stretch to me.  The MP came from the hand of the EP, sure, but it's not like the EP could then rescind it.  A patriarchate is a patriarchate once its made (at least, as far as the Church is concerned; czars can have a way of dissolving them when need be, though :-\ ), so the strings are cut at that point...the EP didn't create the Antiochian patriarchate; don't try to tell me that if Antioch were to grant autocephaly to the AOAA (highly unlikely given the current debacle) that the EP could claim dibs on whether or not it actually goes through.

 

[Schultz]

Who's this from?  Just a discussion topic, or did someone actually say this?  And what in the world would be the rationale behind it?

Probably the same rationale that caused St. John Chrysostom (I think) to say that the road to hell (or was it the floor of hell itself?) was paved with the skulls of bishops and priests.

 

[ialmisry]

"It would be better for humanity and the worse for the fishes if all OCA & AOAA Bishops and Priests were thrown into the sea."- discuss.

Who's this from?  Just a discussion topic, or did someone actually say this?  And what in the world would be the rationale behind it?

Met. Jonah has said that "no one accepts the primacy of the EP based on Canon 28 of Chalcedon" (paraphrase).  The response question was:  how come then several patriarchates were created and funneled through the EP.  The Moscow Patriarchate was created from the EP, who GAVE the OCA their "autocephaly"...So, the very case of his church is based on the primacy of the EP.

Wow, that's a stretch to me.  The MP came from the hand of the EP, sure, but it's not like the EP could then rescind it.  A patriarchate is a patriarchate once its made (at least, as far as the Church is concerned; czars can have a way of dissolving them when need be, though :-\ ), so the strings are cut at that point...the EP didn't create the Antiochian patriarchate; don't try to tell me that if Antioch were to grant autocephaly to the AOAA (highly unlikely given the current debacle) that the EP could claim dibs on whether or not it actually goes through.

This of course is the subject of fierce debate (I am with you on both points).
Mother Church rescinding Autocephaly
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15123.0.html
EP alone granting autocephaly
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,18318.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,5731.0.html


I'm trying to thresh out the issues, starting from the very beginning:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19811.0.html

 

[Irish Hermit]

 The Moscow Patriarchate was created from the EP,

Please see Message 118 in this thread
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15123.msg301667.html#msg301667

Currently it is the last message in the thread.

 

[serb1389]

"It would be better for humanity and the worse for the fishes if all OCA & AOAA Bishops and Priests were thrown into the sea."- discuss.

We just had a priest from the EP make some HUGE statements about Met. Jonah and Met. Philip at our school.  When the text becomes available i'll make sure to put it up for all.  

I think i'll try to summarize some of his statements:  

Met. Jonah has said that "no one accepts the primacy of the EP based on Canon 28 of Chalcedon" (paraphrase).  The response question was:  how come then several patriarchates were created and funneled through the EP.  The Moscow Patriarchate was created from the EP, who GAVE the OCA their "autocephaly"...So, the very case of his church is based on the primacy of the EP.  

Also, he mentioned that Met. Maximos of Sardis has written a book describing the entire history of useage of this canon THROUGHOUT history.  The priest from the EP recommended it.  There were other things, but maybe we could start here.  

I want to see where this quote from Met Jonah came from and see the context.

He gave all of the references in his speach, but I was not able to write down any of them.  I know that it was from one of his many addresses.  I'm trying to go through them all right now to find the one he was talking about. 

As soon as the document is made available, i'm sure it will make clear where all of these things are coming  from.  Sorry for not being more helpful....

 

[serb1389]

"It would be better for humanity and the worse for the fishes if all OCA & AOAA Bishops and Priests were thrown into the sea."- discuss.

We just had a priest from the EP make some HUGE statements about Met. Jonah and Met. Philip at our school.  When the text becomes available i'll make sure to put it up for all.  

I think i'll try to summarize some of his statements:  

Met. Jonah has said that "no one accepts the primacy of the EP based on Canon 28 of Chalcedon" (paraphrase).  The response question was:  how come then several patriarchates were created and funneled through the EP.  The Moscow Patriarchate was created from the EP, who GAVE the OCA their "autocephaly"...So, the very case of his church is based on the primacy of the EP.  

Nonsense.  It's based on Constantinople's autocephaly, but not it's primacy: related, but not identifcal things, and if he is towing the standard EP line of late, the distintion is useful to keep in mind.  I'lll be gettin to this eventually, God willing, on the Autocephaly thread.

Btw, in reference to that, yes, several patriarchates were created and funneled through the EP, from territory belonging to Rome: Bulgaria, Czech and Slovak lands (depending on how much continuity you want to stress from St. Methodius, and how much we want to stress that a core of the present Church are WRO Latin converts, gone Eastern), Serbia (the land, but not it seems the people had a history under Rome), Romania, Albania.  Even Greece was originally Roman territory.

In any case, wasn't Met. Jonah going to the Phanar?  Should make interesting talk over tea and Turkish delights.

Well he was honest in the sense of saying that everyone has someone or something that they are begotten to. He mentioned that Constantinople was created out of an ecumenical council and an ecumenical council could take it away.  I think that he was just trying to ALSO point out that the OCA is in communion with the other churches because of their love for them.  What were to happen if this love didn't exist?  Their church would exist only and completely by themselves and whoever has accepted their autocephaly.  Maybe they should not push the envelope here (seemed to be the suggestion...but i'm posturing). 

Also, he mentioned that Met. Maximos of Sardis has written a book describing the entire history of useage of this canon THROUGHOUT history.  The priest from the EP recommended it.  There were other things, but maybe we could start here.  

What's the book title?

He did not mention the title, but i've heard mention of this book before.  I'll try to do a search in our library today.  I almost GUARANTEE that it's in Greek.  Is that going to be a problem for you? 

Also, before you make remarks like this: 

Sardis, I think that's near Pergamon.  In fact, having been to both places (have their Metropolitans?), I know they are. :

You should know that Met. John (Zizioulas) has been the Pergamon SEVERAL times, and if you ask him he will tell you point blank that he is NOT an "aoritos" bishop, but rather a bishop of a see in captivity.  He honestly believes and has argued that his diocese still exists, and he has promissed to work in his lifetime to return orthodoxy to pergamon. 

I also know that Met. Maximos has ALSO been to Sardis, and has made the exact same statements.  They have a deep passion to restore the many diocese that are now in the hands of the turkish gov't and etc. 

 

[serb1389]

Met. Jonah has said that "no one accepts the primacy of the EP based on Canon 28 of Chalcedon" (paraphrase).  The response question was:  how come then several patriarchates were created and funneled through the EP.  The Moscow Patriarchate was created from the EP, who GAVE the OCA their "autocephaly"...So, the very case of his church is based on the primacy of the EP.

Wow, that's a stretch to me.  The MP came from the hand of the EP, sure, but it's not like the EP could then rescind it.  A patriarchate is a patriarchate once its made (at least, as far as the Church is concerned; czars can have a way of dissolving them when need be, though :-\ ), so the strings are cut at that point...the EP didn't create the Antiochian patriarchate; don't try to tell me that if Antioch were to grant autocephaly to the AOAA (highly unlikely given the current debacle) that the EP could claim dibs on whether or not it actually goes through.

Actually it's not a stretch, the EP has rescinded the autocephaly of several churches in several points of history.  Russia comes to mind as a primary example.  Their autocephaly was given an taken back and etc. several times. 

OF course the EP could claim dibs on whether or not an autocephaly could go through.  EVERY SINGLE AUTOCEPHALOUS church has a right to agree to another autocephalous church, the EP being one of them.  If they do not ALL agree unanimously, then it is not a complete autocephaly b/c you do not have the mind of the whole church behind it, and you are not in full cooperation with the church. 

 

[serb1389]

"It would be better for humanity and the worse for the fishes if all OCA & AOAA Bishops and Priests were thrown into the sea."- discuss.

We just had a priest from the EP make some HUGE statements about Met. Jonah and Met. Philip at our school.  When the text becomes available i'll make sure to put it up for all.  

I think i'll try to summarize some of his statements:  

Met. Jonah has said that "no one accepts the primacy of the EP based on Canon 28 of Chalcedon" (paraphrase).  The response question was:  how come then several patriarchates were created and funneled through the EP.  The Moscow Patriarchate was created from the EP, who GAVE the OCA their "autocephaly"...So, the very case of his church is based on the primacy of the EP.  

Also, he mentioned that Met. Maximos of Sardis has written a book describing the entire history of useage of this canon THROUGHOUT history.  The priest from the EP recommended it.  There were other things, but maybe we could start here.  

I want to see where this quote from Met Jonah came from and see the context.

I found what the priest was talking about and what he was refering to: 

http://www.oca.org/PDF/metropolitan-jonah/MJ.Episcopacy_Primacy_Mother%20Churches.pdf

Bottomn of page 5, going into page 6:

While this was feasible in the days of the Roman
Empire, and later during the Ottoman Millet, it has long since become unrealistic.
For the Empire effectively ceased to exist eight hundred years ago,
and now only the Greek ethnic churches, and a few others, recognize the
Ecumenical Patriarchate to be what it claims to be.

Emphasis mine. 

 

[Innocent]

Read the entire piece and you will get the context. He says nothing that is different than I herd other people say in other jurisdictions including GOA, and AOA priests. Thats why I wanted to see the whole thing to get the true context.

 

[serb1389]

Read the entire piece and you will get the context. He says nothing that is different than I herd other people say in other jurisdictions including GOA, and AOA priests. Thats why I wanted to see the whole thing to get the true context.

I read through the whole article.  I'm having a hard time figuring out what your "context" is.  If you could tell me exactly WHAT context you think this is in, I would personally find it very helpful. 

On the other hand, that statement is bombastic no matter WHAT you couch it with.  If I were the EP i'd be a little perturbed as well. 

 

[Innocent]

The context is how the Orthodox look at the Primacy of one Bishop and the fact that all Bishops are equal. That's what he is saying. There is not higher office than Bishop and all other titles are just that titles.

Bishops are equal. Is that different than what other Orthodox are saying? The position of EP was based on its position in the Empire not some other reason just as Rome before it was the center of the Empire. The Empire is no more so why has the title of "First among Equals" continued in Constantinople?

I believe that is what he was saying.Maybe I'm wrong but thats how I read it and I agree with it.

 

[serb1389]

The context is how the Orthodox look at the Primacy of one Bishop and the fact that all Bishops are equal. That's what he is saying. There is not higher office than Bishop and all other titles are just that titles.

Bishops are equal. Is that different than what other Orthodox are saying? The position of EP was based on its position in the Empire not some other reason just as Rome before it was the center of the Empire. The Empire is no more so why has the title of "First among Equals" continued in Constantinople?

I believe that is what he was saying.Maybe I'm wrong but thats how I read it and I agree with it.

Ok yes, I read through that.  (I have a general hard time to connect dots that are not obvious (seriously), so please forgive me if I seem to be obtuse in this). 

So can you help me now figure out how that context helps his statement about no one believing in the primacy of the EP?  I'm sorry, it just doesn't cut it for me (on the onset). 

 

[Innocent]

Here is how I see it and I emphasise I because I could be wrong.

Met Jonah's whole point is that all Bishops are equal and he reason that the EP and RP before it had a role of Primacy was their place in the Roman Empire (RE).

But at present, there is no effective overarching primacy in the Orthodox Church. Perhaps this is because there is no active ecumenical synod that embraces all Orthodox; and there has been no ecumenical council for over 1200 years.The idea of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is based on primacy over an empire-wide synod, or ecumenical council. Indeed, canonically, the primacy of both Rome and Constantinople had one foundation: they were the imperial capitals.

I believe what he says here is that The synod was RE wide and the EP was the head of THAT synod. Once the the empire started to break up and there became local Churches I think he is say the local Church is the highest authority. So in effect each local Church with its Patriarch and Synod were little EPs.

While this was feasible in the days of the Roman Empire,and later during the Ottoman Millet, it has long since become unrealistic.For the Empire effectively ceased to exist eight hundred years ago,6 and now only the Greek ethnic churches, and a few others, recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate to be what it claims to be. While no one denies it a primacy of honor, it has no real institutional role, much less a role of actual leadership. This is partially due to its location in a hostile Islamic society; and partially due to the lack of cooperation and consensus as to its role among the other Orthodox Churches. Primacy of honor without primacy of jurisdiction is meaningless.

I believe he is saying that only a Small few believe the EPs claim of being the head of the Orthodox Church. He is saying each local Church (synod) is in charge of its own affairs and that the role of the Patriarch of the local Church's is to foster communion between the other local Orthodox Churches.

Is there a primacy beyond that of the national church, and, if so, what is its role? The principle of the autocephaly of national synods has become the quintessential ecclesiological stance of the Orthodox Churches. According to this principle, each national synod has complete independence in governing its own affairs, and especially in electing its bishops and primate. The double office of a primate is to foster communion between the bishops and local communities through the regional synod, as well as to maintain relationships with other national churches.

The point I get out of all this is that local Churches are best governed by local Bishops. This helps prevent the ethnic identification that he talks about later in the reading.

I don't think anything was off base in here except if you believe that "Mother Churches" in the old country best foster the spread of true Christianity. Is that not the entire purpose of the Church to spread true Christianity to the world? Which vision is better suited for that?

 

[admiralnick]

They may not be SDMPNS's concerns, but my concerns about Met. Jonah are:

1) He was promoted very quickly. Only a month as a bishop and then all of a sudden Metropolitan? Hence no experience really as an administrative head.

2) Just giving a speech shouldn't be good enough to get you the highest position, although it happened in another realm of the US which I'm forbidden to speak about. The point being that he might be all talk and no action.

3) He had absolutely nothing to do with the previous OCA problems. Its very hard to come in and clean up a mess if you don't know all of the details behind it and weren't involved in it.

Basically it all amounts to does he have the experience and administrative abilities to effectively lead an entire autocephalous church? In my opinion No.

-Nick

 

[ialmisry]

The context is how the Orthodox look at the Primacy of one Bishop and the fact that all Bishops are equal. That's what he is saying. There is not higher office than Bishop and all other titles are just that titles.

Bishops are equal. Is that different than what other Orthodox are saying? The position of EP was based on its position in the Empire not some other reason just as Rome before it was the center of the Empire. The Empire is no more so why has the title of "First among Equals" continued in Constantinople?

I believe that is what he was saying.Maybe I'm wrong but thats how I read it and I agree with it.

Ok yes, I read through that.  (I have a general hard time to connect dots that are not obvious (seriously), so please forgive me if I seem to be obtuse in this). 

So can you help me now figure out how that context helps his statement about no one believing in the primacy of the EP?  I'm sorry, it just doesn't cut it for me (on the onset). 

The context is truth.

And every syllable that Met. Jonah wrote is true.  The fact that such an obvious, off hand comment should touch a nerve is more telling.

So what's the gist of Met. Jonah's point?  It is because bishops are too busy fighting like dogs rather than shepherding sheep that the primacy problem is a problem, and what was promoted as the solution at the council of Ravenna is part of that problem.

BTW, can anyone dispute/disprove the statement in the article that the Greeks: CoG, EP, Jerusalem, etc. did NOT have a bishop in America before bishop/archb./EP/Pope Meletius showed up?

 

[Starlight]

Canon 28 will always remain a valid one. It is necessary for all Orthodox for follow this Canon.

Given the current situation in the countries outside of traditional Orthodox lands, it may be necessary to keep all diocesan structures until complete unity and autocephaly in these countries will be achieved. But new missionary lands should be pursued in accordance with Canon 28. The best benefit would be the strength and unity of efforts in new missionary dioceses.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Canon 28 will always remain a valid one. It is necessary for all Orthodox for follow this Canon.

But no one is arguing that we should ditch Canon 28.  The only concern I've ever seen is with the interpretation some have advanced for this canon.  Is the interpretation of Canon 28 that the EP has advocated since the 1920's that which we should be following?

 

[Starlight]

Canon 28 will always remain a valid one. It is necessary for all Orthodox for follow this Canon.

But no one is arguing that we should ditch Canon 28.  The only concern I've ever seen is with the interpretation some have advanced for this canon.

Actually, I was just modifying my post in order to get a little bit more details. Sorry!

Well, possible the best solution / compromise / ikonomia, IMHO, would be some flexibility in situations with existing administrative structures of the Church versus establishment of new administrative structures.

 

[Starlight]

Is the interpretation of Canon 28 that the EP has advocated since the 1920's that which we should be following?

In my opinion - yes.

Well, possible the best solution / compromise / ikonomia, IMHO, would be some flexibility in situations with existing administrative structures of the Church versus establishment of new administrative structures.

Having said that, in USA, Canada, Western Europe, Australia it would be optimal and practical to have all existing diocesan stuctures operating for now until the complete unity will be achieved upon the blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Flexibility must be a key. As for such countries as India, Indonesia, China, Pakistan - the optimal and effective way will be to have sturctures of the Ecumenical Patriarchate only. Of course, clergy may come from different Patriarchates and Local Churches. If for example, a widowed priest from Varna, Bulgaria or an OCA archimandrite from Chicago, IL, USA would become a Bishop of Mumbai, India per the decision of the Holy Synod of Constantinople, it will be only a win-win case. There are some Ukrainian priests serving in Africa as clergy of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. All territory of Africa belongs to the Patriarchate of Alexandria. This portion is not disputed by any interpretations of Canon 28.

 

[Innocent]

Having said that, in USA, Canada, Western Europe, Australia it would be optimal and practical to have all existing diocesan structures operating for now until the complete unity will be achieved upon the blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Flexibility must be a key. As for such countries as India, Indonesia, China, Pakistan - the optimal and effective way will be to have structures of the Ecumenical Patriarchate only. Of course, clergy may come from different Patriarchates and Local Churches. If for example, a widowed priest from Varna, Bulgaria or an OCA archimandrite from Chicago, IL, USA would become a Bishop of Mumbai, India per the decision of the Holy Synod of Constantinople, it will be only a win-win case. There are some Ukrainian priests serving in Africa as clergy of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. All territory of Africa belongs to the Patriarchate of Alexandria. This portion is not disputed by any interpretations of Canon 28.

I want to make sure I'm understanding you so please let me know if my interpretation is off. Basically what get from this is all autocephalis Church (Moscow, Greece, Serbia etc..) remain independent but the rest of the world goes under the EP. Some such as North America with more varring degrees of autonomy than others until such time that the EP grants them autocephaly.

I want to make sure I'm understanding this right before commenting so I will not comment until you let me know. Thanks!

 

[Starlight]

Having said that, in USA, Canada, Western Europe, Australia it would be optimal and practical to have all existing diocesan structures operating for now until the complete unity will be achieved upon the blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Flexibility must be a key. As for such countries as India, Indonesia, China, Pakistan - the optimal and effective way will be to have structures of the Ecumenical Patriarchate only. Of course, clergy may come from different Patriarchates and Local Churches. If for example, a widowed priest from Varna, Bulgaria or an OCA archimandrite from Chicago, IL, USA would become a Bishop of Mumbai, India per the decision of the Holy Synod of Constantinople, it will be only a win-win case. There are some Ukrainian priests serving in Africa as clergy of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. All territory of Africa belongs to the Patriarchate of Alexandria. This portion is not disputed by any interpretations of Canon 28.

I want to make sure I'm understanding you so please let me know if my interpretation is off. Basically what get from this is all autocephalis Church (Moscow, Greece, Serbia etc..) remain independent but the rest of the world goes under the EP. Some such as North America with more varring degrees of autonomy than others until such time that the EP grants them autocephaly.

I want to make sure I'm understanding this right before commenting so I will not comment until you let me know. Thanks!

Sorry, actually I intended to say a somewhat different thing. Apologies for not being clear.

- All autocephalous Churches remain independent.
- In areas without united autocephalous Churches (North America, Western Europe, Australia), but with developed Orthodox presence, everything remains as it does now, ideally with increased efforts for unity. In other words, OCA keep its current status. Dioceses of Bulgarian, Romanian, Antiochian Patriarchates, etc. continue in the current status. However, activities for their unity should increase. When such unity becomes possible, the Ecumenical Patriarchate grants autocephaly to the united Orthodox structure in the country or in the region. At least such a scenario will not make situation more complicated.
- Africa remains the territory of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. A hypothetical possibility of establishment of Local Orthodox Churches in the continent remains within authority of the Patriarchate of Alexandria.
- Some countries (India, China, Vietnam, Laos) may have a minimal number of Orthodox parishes or no Orthodox parishes yet. In 2006 I was in Vietnam on Sunday of Orthodoxy and at least at that point of time, the country did not have any Orthodox communities. Instead of having (4) Local Orthodox Churches with (3) parishes each under the omophoron of a different Bishop abroad, may be even in Europe or in Middle East, it will be more efficient to have (1) ruling Bishop for all these (12) parishes. Clergy of these parishes may come from different countries, of course. It will be natural to have a Romanian Orthodox priest for the parish of Romanian expatriates. And this Romanian Orthodox priest can become a Chancellor or a pastor of the major cathedral with the services in local languages. Also, IMHO, it will be more practical and efficient if such new missionary Dioceses will be a part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

 

[Innocent]

Thank you for the clarification.

I see what your saying but I think local Churches need to be created. The Orthodox Churches in America (not OCA) need start working towards unity now and it should be achieved soon. America is hurting for the true Church and the divisions that are in the Orthodox Church here hurt evangelizing efforts. I can't speak to the situation in other countries so I will refrain from commenting.

I also don't understand why just the EP would be in charge of missionary efforts. Just as an example if Russia sent missionary priests to the nation of Guinness and had great success there why should the EP be involved? What benefit to the spread of Orthodoxy is it? Also why at the time of Russia's choosing can't it grant autocephely to the nation of Guinness?

This is my concerns!

*There is no nation of Guinness in case anyone tries to look it up! 

 

[Innocent]

One more point I would like to add. I'm not against the EP being in charge of missionary activity if that was something the Church decides on as a whole.

 

[Starlight]

Thank you for the clarification.

You are welcome!

I think local Churches need to be created. The Orthodox Churches in America (not OCA) need start working towards unity now and it should be achieved soon. America is hurting for the true Church and the divisions that are in the Orthodox Church here hurt evangelizing efforts.

I completely agree with this part.

*There is no nation of Guinness in case anyone tries to look it up!

Cool!

 

[Elisha]

Has SDMPNS actually shared his concerns yet?  I haven't noticed.

 

[Innocent]

Has SDMPNS actually shared his concerns yet?  I haven't noticed.

LOL No!!  ;D

 

[ialmisry]

Is the interpretation of Canon 28 that the EP has advocated since the 1920's that which we should be following?

In my opinion - yes.

Well, possible the best solution / compromise / ikonomia, IMHO, would be some flexibility in situations with existing administrative structures of the Church versus establishment of new administrative structures.

Having said that, in USA, Canada, Western Europe, Australia it would be optimal and practical to have all existing diocesan stuctures operating for now until the complete unity will be achieved upon the blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

And if he refuses his blessing?

Flexibility must be a key. As for such countries as India, Indonesia, China, Pakistan - the optimal and effective way will be to have sturctures of the Ecumenical Patriarchate only.

Russia already has a mission of long standing in China.  I'm not against Hong Kong absorbing it, but things like Estonia make that less likely.

If I am not mistaken, the founder of the Church in Indonesia is now with ROCA, hence Russia, no?

There are some Ukrainian priests serving in Africa as clergy of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. All territory of Africa belongs to the Patriarchate of Alexandria. This portion is not disputed by any interpretations of Canon 28.

Canon 28 has nothing to do with Alexandria, or Africa.  Nor has it anything to do with how Alexandria got the whole continent: that happened in the 1920's, and only on analogy (competition) with the Coptic Pope and his jurisdiction.

 

[ialmisry]

Canon 28 will always remain a valid one. It is necessary for all Orthodox for follow this Canon.

Every one does.
Just so we all know what canon 28 is:

Canon XXVIII.

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome.  For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city.  And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

We've heard the EP novel "famous" interpretation of this.  Here's another, by Bishop Peter of blessed memory, who was a renowned canonist.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Umse6CFnt3MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Church+of+the+Ancient+councils#PPA280,M1
p. 267 ff.

Given the current situation in the countries outside of traditional Orthodox lands, it may be necessary to keep all diocesan structures until complete unity and autocephaly in these countries will be achieved. But new missionary lands should be pursued in accordance with Canon 28. The best benefit would be the strength and unity of efforts in new missionary dioceses.

I've seen the EP's interpretation of Canon 28 in action. I'm not terribly impressed.