- Feb 28, 2008
- Reaction score
- Orthodox Christian
- GOA - Metropolis of Denver
I think the OCA will relinquish its autocephaly. As for the primate of the new, united church here in North America, it isn't guaranteed to be a GOA bishop. If you hear the current proposal (which is very popular, except amongst some ACROD/ROCOR bishops), the primate will be (as usual) elected by the synod of bishops, which would either be composed of just regional Archbishops/Metropolitans, or would be composed of all bishops. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to having Archbishop Demetrios as our primate.Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:I do appreciate your honesty. Do you think that OCA's mother church will revoke the Tomos, while at the same time opposing Constantinople's Canon 28 argument for universal jurisdiction (except the existing local churches of course)?podkarpatska said:I doubt very much that the current ruling hierarchs of the OCA would agree as a Synod to take such a hardline if push came to shove.) A few living retired and a number of now deceased ones might have so dreamed, but if Moscow takes that position, schism and centuries of world wide bickering will follow. That result is probably not worth the principle being fought over for the sake of some 140,000 North American faithful of the current OCA (if that - and a far smaller % of those members who would passionately prefer such schism to a negotiated solution to North America.)Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:And, the biggest issue remains: What role, if any, will the OCA have in committees and the final deliberations. It seems to me that Chambesy pointed the way to solve the overlapping jurisdictions issue via the regional assemblies, and we know that the North and Central American EA is not even considering autocephaly (per HE Savvas) nor autonomy (the ROC/ROCOR and Bulgarian delegations). The nice thing about the North/Central American EA is that the OCA bishops are participating. The not-nice thing about the Synaxis is that the OCA is not participating. OCA's autocephaly is similar to pregnancy or marriage--unlike the RCs we do not annul marriages nor, like the RCs, are we in favor of abortion. Bottom line: Unless the OCA in a national meeting gives its assent to any provision that affects her autocephaly, this synaxis nor the scheduled Council are valid and binding.Fr. George said:I won't be so surprised. They will work on the issue until something mutually agreeable has been reached (whatever that is). Remember, we're not the only place with overlapping jurisdictions. Remember, too, that various committees (with representation from the Churches) have been and will continue to work on the issues before the Council is formally convened.Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:Since they have apparently agreed to the principle of unanimity, I would be surprised if they solve the problem of the OCA.podkarpatska said:Gotta break my silence.
Isa: Get over it, the Council is going to happen whether you like it or not.
What, if anything, it accomplishes remains to be seen.
The greatest mistake in 20th century North American Orthodoxy was the miscalculation by certain leading mid century American Orthodox academics that unilaterally granting the not even united for fifty years at the time Russian Metropolia autocephaly at the height of the Cold War would be the "Kumbaya" moment where all of the disparate and disunited ethnic groups would see the light and join hands. Moscow's current calls for the need for unanimity and consensus are laughable against that history.
Sorry, but I believe that what I wrote here, harsh as it is, accurately reflects the opinions of many, if not most, non-OCA North American Orthodox. We mostly want the ideal of unity, but on terms acceptable to all, not just one,of our canonical jurisdictions.
I must hasten to add that the OCA has always been willing to relinquish her autocephaly in favor of an administratively united AND autocephalous church (which more than likely will be led by a hierarch from the current GOA).
I should add that I do agree with you that we would want "terms acceptable to all, not just one,of our canonical jurisdictions." Since I have not heard anyone say that the OCA is not canonical, why isn't the OCA in the Synaxis, as she is in the AOB? Indeed, I really believe that all autonomous churches should also participate in the Synaxis and the Great Council.
Why should autonomous churches participate? That would drastically skew numbers. Look at all the various autonomous churches under the various autocephalous churches, if you had 13 or 20 bishops from every autocephalous and autonomous church, then that will slant the voting in the favor of whoever has the most autonomous churches under their authority.