• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016

Should the Holy and Great Council be postponed?


  • Total voters
    41
  • Poll closed .

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
GOA - Metropolis of Denver
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
podkarpatska said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
Fr. George said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
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.

Peace, out.
Since they have apparently agreed to the principle of unanimity, I would be surprised if they solve the problem of the OCA.
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.
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.
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.)

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 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)?

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.
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.

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.
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
GOA - Metropolis of Denver
In any circumstance, I would be happy with autocephaly. But if we have autonomy, I honestly have to say that I want us to be an autocephalous church under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, not Moscow.
 

Cavaradossi

Archon
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
2,179
Reaction score
199
Points
63
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
AANA
Maria said:
xOrthodox4Christx said:
Maria said:
Noddy999 said:
Thanks.

The Synaxis agreed that the preparatory work to the Synod should be intensified. A special Inter-Orthodox Committee will work from September 2014 until Holy Easter of 2015, followed by a Pre-Synodal Pan-Orthodox Conference to be convened in the first half of 2015. All decisions at the Synod and in the preparatory stages are made by consensus. The Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church will be convened by the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople in 2016, unless something unexpected occurs. The Synod will be presided by the Ecumenical Patriarch. His brother Primates of the other Orthodox Autocephalous Churches will be seated at his right and at his left.
Why are they using "Easter"? Whatever happened to "the Holy Pascha of the Lord"?

What is the Greek passage here?
Easter is the English equivalent. 'Pascua' might be a Spanish translation, but 'Easter' is the Anglo word for it.
At Pan-Orthodox Retreats with Antiochians, Greeks,  OCAers, and Serbians, the priests were unanimous in begging us not to use EASTER when referring to the PASCHA of the Lord.
They probably also think that Icons are written and not painted. In the English language, the noun is Easter and the adjective is Paschal, and that is simply all there is to it.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,973
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
Fr. George said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
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.

Peace, out.
Since they have apparently agreed to the principle of unanimity, I would be surprised if they solve the problem of the OCA.
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.
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.
Exactly, and now that is underlined by the Phanar thinking it can, by its own motion, shut out another Church which, unlike the OCA is recognized as autocephalous by absolutely everyone.

The whole scheme is to sneak in the Phanar's mythology about itself and its "prerogatives."  That said, that doesn't mean something can't be made of it.  Something already has: besides falling into a Catch-22 on the status of the OCA's autocephaly (many years Abp. Demetrios!), it also has solved the issue of knowing whether some parish or bishop was canonical or not.  If we manage to agree on a single thing in Synaxis/Council, the Vatican going to have to adjust its claims on our alleged need of its swelled head.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,973
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Mor Ephrem said:
The Synaxis agreed that the preparatory work to the Synod should be intensified. A special Inter-Orthodox Committee will work from September 2014 until Holy Easter of 2015, followed by a Pre-Synodal Pan-Orthodox Conference to be convened in the first half of 2015. All decisions at the Synod and in the preparatory stages are made by consensus. The Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church will be convened by the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople in 2016, unless something unexpected occurs.
That's a very interesting qualification to make two years in advance of something everyone supposedly wants.  
sssshhhhhh!!!!

Edited to fix tags.  Mor.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,973
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Location
Chicago
podkarpatska said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
Fr. George said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
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.

Peace, out.
Since they have apparently agreed to the principle of unanimity, I would be surprised if they solve the problem of the OCA.
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.
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.
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.)

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.
The problem is that the Phanar has made it about its claimed prerogatives-including the right to revoke or modify autocephaly.  The Phanar itself has repeated tied its claims to the claim that it granted autocepahly to Russia in 1589, with defined and limited boundaries.  Pat. Alexis I had to remind EP Athenagaroas that his predecessor himself had come to Moscow to celebrated the 500 anniversary of its autocephaly in 1948.  Moscow isn't giving an inch to the Phanar that it can stretch to a yard to bind them.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,973
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Location
Chicago
podkarpatska said:
I am simply saying that of the roughly one million (a generous count for sure) Orthodox in the United States, perhaps about 15% make up the OCA. Many of the same issues exist today regarding unity that existed when FOCA failed in 1944 and the OCA failed to gain acceptance as an independent body from the other 85% of American Orthodox (and the 'mother' churches) by the end of the 1970's.

I realize that the Church is not a democracy, but the idea that the OCA's standing as an autocephalous body must first gain the unanimous approval of the other fourteen or so Orthodox Churches before the rest of us 'come on board', and the Great Council proceeds, is simply wishful thinking.
no where as fanciful as the idea that anyone is going to swallow the Phanariot enhanced canon 28.

Of course, Moscow might find it useful, as it did with the ROCOR statement, to let the OCA stand outside and object, thereby denying the Council unanimity without Moscow having to have its fingerprints on the upset apple cart.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,973
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Location
Chicago
jwinch2 said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
Fr. George said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
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.

Peace, out.
Since they have apparently agreed to the principle of unanimity, I would be surprised if they solve the problem of the OCA.
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.
nor, like the RCs, are we in favor of abortion.
What are you talking about? 
just what he said: abortion is a big no-no for both you and us.
 

BTRAKAS

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
69
Location
North Royalton, Ohio
ialmisry said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
Fr. George said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
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.

Peace, out.
Since they have apparently agreed to the principle of unanimity, I would be surprised if they solve the problem of the OCA.
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.
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.
Exactly, and now that is underlined by the Phanar thinking it can, by its own motion, shut out another Church which, unlike the OCA is recognized as autocephalous by absolutely everyone.

The whole scheme is to sneak in the Phanar's mythology about itself and its "prerogatives."  That said, that doesn't mean something can't be made of it.  Something already has: besides falling into a Catch-22 on the status of the OCA's autocephaly (many years Abp. Demetrios!), it also has solved the issue of knowing whether some parish or bishop was canonical or not.  If we manage to agree on a single thing in Synaxis/Council, the Vatican going to have to adjust its claims on our alleged need of its swelled head.
The Ecumenical Patriarch has the canonical responsibility to hear appeals from within the Holy Orthodox Churches. Traditionally, he convenes Extraordinary Pan-Orthodox Synods to adjudicate such appeals. In this matter concerning the Church of the Czech and Slovak Lands, one of their bishops complained to the Ecumenical Patriarchate about the election conducted for their new primate; a conference has been held without resolution, but the appellate process has not as yet proceeded to the realm of adjudication.
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
Since ACROD has been under the EP and its Synod since its founding and the current ruling hierarch is from the GOARCH, I'm not sure what Devin is referring to. We individually have expressed concerns with some of the draft proposals, but so have all the jurisdictions. Only Antioch and ROCOR have suspended participation to some degree or another. Personally I do not see the American jurisdictions' legal and logistical issues being worked out over the next eighteen months anyway.. A "framework" maybe, but not a final plan.
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,025
Reaction score
5
Points
36
Age
76
Location
South Carolina
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Diocese of the South (OCA)
ICXCNIKA said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
podkarpatska said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
Fr. George said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
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.

Peace, out.
Since they have apparently agreed to the principle of unanimity, I would be surprised if they solve the problem of the OCA.
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.
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.
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.)

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 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)?

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.
Carl, thank you for your posts. I just wanted to add 2 points. The first is I do not believe that a tomos can be revoked...it can only be surrendered in my opinion. The other point is more of a question. Wouldn't any merger on the part of the OCA have to be approved by an All American Council?
Looks like we agree (as usual). I also do not believe that Moscow can revoke the Tomos (nor do I think that she would). Thus, the Tomos is for the OCA to surrender in exchange for an administratively united and autocephalous church. Also yes, such a decision would have to be made by an All American Council.

I should reemphasize here that the OCA has never claimed that the leadership and administrative structure of such an autocephalous church would come from or be based on the OCA. If I were to judge the personal repute of the various hierarchs in the United States (with whom I am most familiar), I would think that the ACOB bishops would elect either Archbishop Demetrios or Bishop Basil. However, I think that each of the jurisdictions in the ACOB has a bishop who would make a good primate. It also may not be a bad idea to rotate the primatial responsibilities (as SCOBA had initially envisioned) and to perhaps elect by lot from a pool of candidates. With ruling bishops and ethnic vicars in place, I would think that the primate would largely fill the role of a presiding bishop and, if he is also rotated, his "mother church" or ethnic affinity would not be a threat or source of jealousy.
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,025
Reaction score
5
Points
36
Age
76
Location
South Carolina
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Diocese of the South (OCA)
podkarpatska said:
I am simply saying that of the roughly one million (a generous count for sure) Orthodox in the United States, perhaps about 15% make up the OCA. Many of the same issues exist today regarding unity that existed when FOCA failed in 1944 and the OCA failed to gain acceptance as an independent body from the other 85% of American Orthodox (and the 'mother' churches) by the end of the 1970's.

I realize that the Church is not a democracy, but the idea that the OCA's standing as an autocephalous body must first gain the unanimous approval of the other fourteen or so Orthodox Churches before the rest of us 'come on board', and the Great Council proceeds, is simply wishful thinking.
You are right of course; the Great Council will indeed occur if Moscow and Constantinople want it to proceed forward. However, the question in my mind is if this council will be like the 1439 Council of Florence or the 1672 Council of Jerusalem.
 

jwinch2

Sr. Member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
244
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Texas, USA
ialmisry said:
jwinch2 said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
Fr. George said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
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.

Peace, out.
Since they have apparently agreed to the principle of unanimity, I would be surprised if they solve the problem of the OCA.
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.
nor, like the RCs, are we in favor of abortion.
What are you talking about? 
just what he said: abortion is a big no-no for both you and us.
It sounded like he was saying that Catholics are in favor of abortion, but Orthodox are not.  I am glad to see that I misunderstood.

Thank you very much for the clarification. 


So as not to derail what is obviously an important thread for all of you, I can be reached via PM if there needs to be further discussion on this particular issue.


For what it is worth, I hope that the Council brings many blessings to all of you and serves to solve some of the issues that all of you are discussing.   

Peace,
 

username!

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
5,090
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Where Iron hydrochloride ruins watersheds
88Devin12 said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
podkarpatska said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
Fr. George said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
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.

Peace, out.
Since they have apparently agreed to the principle of unanimity, I would be surprised if they solve the problem of the OCA.
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.
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.
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.)

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 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)?

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.
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.

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.
Devin have ever seen an acrod church or parishoner in person? What in relation to acrod are you talking about anyway?
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
GOA - Metropolis of Denver
username! said:
88Devin12 said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
podkarpatska said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
Fr. George said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
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.

Peace, out.
Since they have apparently agreed to the principle of unanimity, I would be surprised if they solve the problem of the OCA.
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.
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.
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.)

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 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)?

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.
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.

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.
Devin have ever seen an acrod church or parishoner in person? What in relation to acrod are you talking about anyway?
I believe that Kevin Allen, on AF Today a few weeks ago, said that the Antiochians withdrew due to the problems with Jerusalem in Qatar. He also said that ROCOR and some ACROD bishops have said they remain committed to their respected "mother churches" and don't want to leave them, and they were in strong objection to the current proposal for unification.

He had the man who is involved with forming the proposal on the program, and Kevin stated what Bishops have vocalized in private to him, and they clarified on the program that those Bishops who were protesting were misunderstanding what the proposal was suggesting.
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,025
Reaction score
5
Points
36
Age
76
Location
South Carolina
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Diocese of the South (OCA)
^^ I believe that the Bulgarian Patriarchal jurisdiction also rejected a unified church in the near future. I do not know about the Serbian Church, but the Romanian Patriarchate has claimed that she is the only church for Romanians anywhere in the world.
 

genesisone

Archon
Joined
Aug 20, 2005
Messages
2,906
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
70
Location
Niagara Region, Ontario
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antioch
Cavaradossi said:
Maria said:
At Pan-Orthodox Retreats with Antiochians, Greeks,  OCAers, and Serbians, the priests were unanimous in begging us not to use EASTER when referring to the PASCHA of the Lord.
They probably also think that Icons are written and not painted. In the English language, the noun is Easter and the adjective is Paschal, and that is simply all there is to it.
We agree. Mostly. For me, "Pascha" has a nuance that "Easter" doesn't simply because of the different emphases in how and what we celebrate. It also helps in years when Orthodox and Western Easter differ  ;). Overall, though, it really isn't worth making much fuss over it. When speaking with non-Orthodox I generally use "Easter", at least in ordinary conversation.

But to keep this on topic, it's sometimes these rather silly things that stand in the way of coming to a consensus on the larger issues.
 

ICXCNIKA

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,580
Reaction score
51
Points
48
Location
Lincoln, Nebraska
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
88Devin12 said:
username! said:
88Devin12 said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
podkarpatska said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
Fr. George said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
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.

Peace, out.
Since they have apparently agreed to the principle of unanimity, I would be surprised if they solve the problem of the OCA.
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.
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.
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.)

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 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)?

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.
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.

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.
Devin have ever seen an acrod church or parishoner in person? What in relation to acrod are you talking about anyway?
I believe that Kevin Allen, on AF Today a few weeks ago, said that the Antiochians withdrew due to the problems with Jerusalem in Qatar. He also said that ROCOR and some ACROD bishops have said they remain committed to their respected "mother churches" and don't want to leave them, and they were in strong objection to the current proposal for unification.
I think you may be confusing ACROD with perhaps the Bulgarian Church. ACROD as far as I know only has the one bishop and no mother church other than the EP. I would imagine that Rusyns would be found in every country along the Carpathians each with its own Orthodox Church. Podkarpatska can correct me if I am mistaken.
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
GOA - Metropolis of Denver
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
^^ I believe that the Bulgarian Patriarchal jurisdiction also rejected a unified church in the near future. I do not know about the Serbian Church, but the Romanian Patriarchate has claimed that she is the only church for Romanians anywhere in the world.
Yeah, and I personally don't think any of this is at risk of preventing a unified church in the United States. Basically from what I've gathered based on the stuff out of Chambesy and since then, is what the Great Council is going to say, is that "You are unifying, or you are excommunicated." So if the Bulgarian, ROCOR, ACROD or Romanian churches in America refuse to comply, they are going to be some serious canonical trouble.

But to be honest, they are negligible in terms of presence in the US & Canada.

ACROD only has 79 parishes, with 10,000 adherents. The Bulgarians only have 20 parishes, with 2,000 adherents. The Romanians only have 31 parishes, with 11,000 adherents. ROCOR is the only "significant" group among these, with 136 parishes and 27,000 adherents.

That's just 266 parishes, and 50,000 adherents. Alltogether, that's only 14% of Orthodox parishes, and 6% of Orthodox adherents in the USA & Canada.

So while it may be several groups, it isn't a large number of them who are threatening to a refusal to comply with the Assembly & the Great and Holy Council.

 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
GOA - Metropolis of Denver
ICXCNIKA said:
88Devin12 said:
username! said:
88Devin12 said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
podkarpatska said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
Fr. George said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
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.

Peace, out.
Since they have apparently agreed to the principle of unanimity, I would be surprised if they solve the problem of the OCA.
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.
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.
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.)

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 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)?

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.
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.

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.
Devin have ever seen an acrod church or parishoner in person? What in relation to acrod are you talking about anyway?
I believe that Kevin Allen, on AF Today a few weeks ago, said that the Antiochians withdrew due to the problems with Jerusalem in Qatar. He also said that ROCOR and some ACROD bishops have said they remain committed to their respected "mother churches" and don't want to leave them, and they were in strong objection to the current proposal for unification.
I think you may be confusing ACROD with perhaps the Bulgarian Church. ACROD as far as I know only has the one bishop and no mother church other than the EP. I would imagine that Rusyns would be found in every country along the Carpathians each with its own Orthodox Church. Podkarpatska can correct me if I am mistaken.
I'll have to go back and listen to it, but I was sure he said that ACROD but I had forgotten they only have 1 bishop.

I'm going to repost something I posted a minute ago, this thread just jumped to another page and I may have replied so fast that people might not have noticed it...

Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
^^ I believe that the Bulgarian Patriarchal jurisdiction also rejected a unified church in the near future. I do not know about the Serbian Church, but the Romanian Patriarchate has claimed that she is the only church for Romanians anywhere in the world.
Yeah, and I personally don't think any of this is at risk of preventing a unified church in the United States. Basically from what I've gathered based on the stuff out of Chambesy and since then, is what the Great Council is going to say, is that "You are unifying, or you are excommunicated." So if the Bulgarian, ROCOR, ACROD or Romanian churches in America refuse to comply, they are going to be some serious canonical trouble.

But to be honest, they are negligible in terms of presence in the USA.

ACROD only has 79 parishes, with 10,000 adherents. The Bulgarians only have 20 parishes, with 2,000 adherents. The Romanians only have 31 parishes, with 11,000 adherents. ROCOR is the only "significant" group among these, with 136 parishes and 27,000 adherents.

That's just 266 parishes, and 50,000 adherents. Alltogether, that's only 14% of Orthodox parishes, and 6% of Orthodox adherents in the USA.

So while it may be several groups, it isn't a large number of them who are threatening to a refusal to comply with the Assembly & the Great and Holy Council.

 

ICXCNIKA

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,580
Reaction score
51
Points
48
Location
Lincoln, Nebraska
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
88Devin12 said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
^^ I believe that the Bulgarian Patriarchal jurisdiction also rejected a unified church in the near future. I do not know about the Serbian Church, but the Romanian Patriarchate has claimed that she is the only church for Romanians anywhere in the world.
Yeah, and I personally don't think any of this is at risk of preventing a unified church in the United States. Basically from what I've gathered based on the stuff out of Chambesy and since then, is what the Great Council is going to say, is that "You are unifying, or you are excommunicated." So if the Bulgarian, ROCOR, ACROD or Romanian churches in America refuse to comply, they are going to be some serious canonical trouble.

But to be honest, they are negligible in terms of presence in the US & Canada.

ACROD only has 79 parishes, with 10,000 adherents. The Bulgarians only have 20 parishes, with 2,000 adherents. The Romanians only have 31 parishes, with 11,000 adherents. ROCOR is the only "significant" group among these, with 136 parishes and 27,000 adherents.

That's just 266 parishes, and 50,000 adherents. Alltogether, that's only 14% of Orthodox parishes, and 6% of Orthodox adherents in the USA & Canada.

So while it may be several groups, it isn't a large number of them who are threatening to a refusal to comply with the Assembly & the Great and Holy Council.
I don't think that any eparchy/archdiocese here in NA would be saying this unless they were following the instructions of their Mother Churches so if that is the case it would cause a major schism if excommunications were handed down. I would be surprised if unanimity  will be found on all the topics.
 

jwinch2

Sr. Member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
244
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Texas, USA
Can someone perhaps direct me to information that explains the difference between these two?

http://assemblyofbishops.org/
http://www.scoba.us/

I am trying to follow this conversation, and am doing so with interest, but I am uninformed as to what the purview of some of the groups mentioned would be.  The information I found suggests that SCOBA's duties were taken over by the Assembly, but comments on this thread seem to suggest that SCOBA is still active. 

I don't wish to derail the thread, so a link to someplace which discusses these two entities, or a PM would be fine.

Thanks,  
 

ICXCNIKA

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,580
Reaction score
51
Points
48
Location
Lincoln, Nebraska
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
jwinch2 said:
Can someone perhaps direct me to information that explains the difference between these two?

http://assemblyofbishops.org/
http://www.scoba.us/

I am trying to follow this conversation, and am doing so with interest, but I am uninformed as to what the purview of some of the groups mentioned would be.

I don't wish to derail the thread, so a link to someplace which discusses these two entities, or a PM would be fine.

Thanks,  
AFAIK SCOBA has been replaced by the Assembly.
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
GOA - Metropolis of Denver
ICXCNIKA said:
88Devin12 said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
^^ I believe that the Bulgarian Patriarchal jurisdiction also rejected a unified church in the near future. I do not know about the Serbian Church, but the Romanian Patriarchate has claimed that she is the only church for Romanians anywhere in the world.
Yeah, and I personally don't think any of this is at risk of preventing a unified church in the United States. Basically from what I've gathered based on the stuff out of Chambesy and since then, is what the Great Council is going to say, is that "You are unifying, or you are excommunicated." So if the Bulgarian, ROCOR, ACROD or Romanian churches in America refuse to comply, they are going to be some serious canonical trouble.

But to be honest, they are negligible in terms of presence in the US & Canada.

ACROD only has 79 parishes, with 10,000 adherents. The Bulgarians only have 20 parishes, with 2,000 adherents. The Romanians only have 31 parishes, with 11,000 adherents. ROCOR is the only "significant" group among these, with 136 parishes and 27,000 adherents.

That's just 266 parishes, and 50,000 adherents. Alltogether, that's only 14% of Orthodox parishes, and 6% of Orthodox adherents in the USA & Canada.

So while it may be several groups, it isn't a large number of them who are threatening to a refusal to comply with the Assembly & the Great and Holy Council.
I don't think that any eparchy/archdiocese here in NA would be saying this unless they were following the instructions of their Mother Churches so if that is the case it would cause a major schism if excommunications were handed down. I would be surprised if unanimity  will be found on all the topics.
Unanimity will be found on all the topics, they have 2 full years until the Great Council. They've got email, letters, telephones, video conferencing and of course, modern transportation to be able to easily meet together and hash things out. I don't think that people have any right to be pessimistic about this. Almost no autocephalous church is prevented from leaving their home country, and all have easy access to one another. There will be a lot of meeting and negotiations.

Remember that they aren't going to be debating at the council. They are going to be voting at the council, they are going to be using these 2 years to debate and negotiate so they go into the council with their decisions prepared. I honestly think that we are going to know how the votes are going to go in the council before they actually happen just by virtue of the negotiations that will go on beforehand.

This is the AFToday program that discussed unity and included a short discussion on objections of some bishops against it: http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/aftoday/orthodox_unity_bump_in_the_road_or_end_of_the_road
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
GOA - Metropolis of Denver
jwinch2 said:
Can someone perhaps direct me to information that explains the difference between these two?

http://assemblyofbishops.org/
http://www.scoba.us/

I am trying to follow this conversation, and am doing so with interest, but I am uninformed as to what the purview of some of the groups mentioned would be.  The information I found suggests that SCOBA's duties were taken over by the Assembly, but comments on this thread seem to suggest that SCOBA is still active. 

I don't wish to derail the thread, so a link to someplace which discusses these two entities, or a PM would be fine.

Thanks,  
SCOBA no longer exists, it was voluntary body that has since been absorbed into the Assembly, which is a mandatory body.
 

jwinch2

Sr. Member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
244
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Texas, USA
ICXCNIKA said:
jwinch2 said:
Can someone perhaps direct me to information that explains the difference between these two?

http://assemblyofbishops.org/
http://www.scoba.us/

I am trying to follow this conversation, and am doing so with interest, but I am uninformed as to what the purview of some of the groups mentioned would be.

I don't wish to derail the thread, so a link to someplace which discusses these two entities, or a PM would be fine.

Thanks,  
AFAIK SCOBA has been replaced by the Assembly.
Thank you. 
 

jwinch2

Sr. Member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
244
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Texas, USA
88Devin12 said:
jwinch2 said:
Can someone perhaps direct me to information that explains the difference between these two?

http://assemblyofbishops.org/
http://www.scoba.us/

I am trying to follow this conversation, and am doing so with interest, but I am uninformed as to what the purview of some of the groups mentioned would be.  The information I found suggests that SCOBA's duties were taken over by the Assembly, but comments on this thread seem to suggest that SCOBA is still active. 

I don't wish to derail the thread, so a link to someplace which discusses these two entities, or a PM would be fine.

Thanks,  
SCOBA no longer exists, it was voluntary body that has since been absorbed into the Assembly, which is a mandatory body.
OK.  That jibes with what I found online.  Thanks!
 

username!

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
5,090
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Where Iron hydrochloride ruins watersheds
88Devin12 said:
ICXCNIKA said:
88Devin12 said:
username! said:
88Devin12 said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
podkarpatska said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
Fr. George said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
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.

Peace, out.
Since they have apparently agreed to the principle of unanimity, I would be surprised if they solve the problem of the OCA.
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.
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.
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.)

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 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)?

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.
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.

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.
Devin have ever seen an acrod church or parishoner in person? What in relation to acrod are you talking about anyway?
I believe that Kevin Allen, on AF Today a few weeks ago, said that the Antiochians withdrew due to the problems with Jerusalem in Qatar. He also said that ROCOR and some ACROD bishops have said they remain committed to their respected "mother churches" and don't want to leave them, and they were in strong objection to the current proposal for unification.
I think you may be confusing ACROD with perhaps the Bulgarian Church. ACROD as far as I know only has the one bishop and no mother church other than the EP. I would imagine that Rusyns would be found in every country along the Carpathians each with its own Orthodox Church. Podkarpatska can correct me if I am mistaken.
I'll have to go back and listen to it, but I was sure he said that ACROD but I had forgotten they only have 1 bishop.

I'm going to repost something I posted a minute ago, this thread just jumped to another page and I may have replied so fast that people might not have noticed it...

Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
^^ I believe that the Bulgarian Patriarchal jurisdiction also rejected a unified church in the near future. I do not know about the Serbian Church, but the Romanian Patriarchate has claimed that she is the only church for Romanians anywhere in the world.
Yeah, and I personally don't think any of this is at risk of preventing a unified church in the United States. Basically from what I've gathered based on the stuff out of Chambesy and since then, is what the Great Council is going to say, is that "You are unifying, or you are excommunicated." So if the Bulgarian, ROCOR, ACROD or Romanian churches in America refuse to comply, they are going to be some serious canonical trouble.

But to be honest, they are negligible in terms of presence in the USA.

ACROD only has 79 parishes, with 10,000 adherents. The Bulgarians only have 20 parishes, with 2,000 adherents. The Romanians only have 31 parishes, with 11,000 adherents. ROCOR is the only "significant" group among these, with 136 parishes and 27,000 adherents.

That's just 266 parishes, and 50,000 adherents. Alltogether, that's only 14% of Orthodox parishes, and 6% of Orthodox adherents in the USA.

So while it may be several groups, it isn't a large number of them who are threatening to a refusal to comply with the Assembly & the Great and Holy Council.
That's a big assumption about ACROD. And as far as your scoff at their numbers I find it offensive and snobbish.  Where I'm from ACROD is a common church.  It makes up a good bit of the local parishes. People forget the Orthodox world in the USA is bigger than their Midwestern OCA parish. Here we hsve lots of churches and many jurisdictions. I kniw lots of the country only sees an OCA or Antiochian or Greek church doesn't make that the complete make up of the usa
 

username!

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
5,090
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Where Iron hydrochloride ruins watersheds
And I'm typing on a phone pardon my typos.
Let's look at acrod facts;
Their bishop is from GOAA and a cradle Greek Orthodox. I doubt he would lead them asunder from a great council's rulings. 
ACROD is a great jurisdiction. Take the local ACROD parish, they sing a plainchant called prostopinije. OCA calls their generic sheet music of prostopinije "carpatho russian chant".  Everyone, yes everyone sings led by a cantor.  It's an uplifting experience compared to listening to a choir and standing there lost in thought. 
ACROD people are very welcoming.
No matter what an autonomous/autochephalos church will allow communities to preserve their small traditions. 
It's wrong to start rumors based on assumptions Devin.
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
GOA - Metropolis of Denver
username! said:
88Devin12 said:
ICXCNIKA said:
88Devin12 said:
username! said:
88Devin12 said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
podkarpatska said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
Fr. George said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
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.

Peace, out.
Since they have apparently agreed to the principle of unanimity, I would be surprised if they solve the problem of the OCA.
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.
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.
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.)

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 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)?

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.
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.

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.
Devin have ever seen an acrod church or parishoner in person? What in relation to acrod are you talking about anyway?
I believe that Kevin Allen, on AF Today a few weeks ago, said that the Antiochians withdrew due to the problems with Jerusalem in Qatar. He also said that ROCOR and some ACROD bishops have said they remain committed to their respected "mother churches" and don't want to leave them, and they were in strong objection to the current proposal for unification.
I think you may be confusing ACROD with perhaps the Bulgarian Church. ACROD as far as I know only has the one bishop and no mother church other than the EP. I would imagine that Rusyns would be found in every country along the Carpathians each with its own Orthodox Church. Podkarpatska can correct me if I am mistaken.
I'll have to go back and listen to it, but I was sure he said that ACROD but I had forgotten they only have 1 bishop.

I'm going to repost something I posted a minute ago, this thread just jumped to another page and I may have replied so fast that people might not have noticed it...

Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
^^ I believe that the Bulgarian Patriarchal jurisdiction also rejected a unified church in the near future. I do not know about the Serbian Church, but the Romanian Patriarchate has claimed that she is the only church for Romanians anywhere in the world.
Yeah, and I personally don't think any of this is at risk of preventing a unified church in the United States. Basically from what I've gathered based on the stuff out of Chambesy and since then, is what the Great Council is going to say, is that "You are unifying, or you are excommunicated." So if the Bulgarian, ROCOR, ACROD or Romanian churches in America refuse to comply, they are going to be some serious canonical trouble.

But to be honest, they are negligible in terms of presence in the USA.

ACROD only has 79 parishes, with 10,000 adherents. The Bulgarians only have 20 parishes, with 2,000 adherents. The Romanians only have 31 parishes, with 11,000 adherents. ROCOR is the only "significant" group among these, with 136 parishes and 27,000 adherents.

That's just 266 parishes, and 50,000 adherents. Alltogether, that's only 14% of Orthodox parishes, and 6% of Orthodox adherents in the USA.

So while it may be several groups, it isn't a large number of them who are threatening to a refusal to comply with the Assembly & the Great and Holy Council.
That's a big assumption about ACROD. And as far as your scoff at their numbers I find it offensive and snobbish.  Where I'm from ACROD is a common church.  It makes up a good bit of the local parishes. People forget the Orthodox world in the USA is bigger than their Midwestern OCA parish. Here we hsve lots of churches and many jurisdictions. I kniw lots of the country only sees an OCA or Antiochian or Greek church doesn't make that the complete make up of the usa
What big assumption about ACROD? You didn't read anything I said. As for what Kevin Allen said, IF he did mention ACROD, I doubt you can classify it as "rumor". Like I said, it was not an assumption, it was something I thought I had heard, but it may have in fact have been the Bulgarians he was talking about, not ACROD. He did mention ACROD in that program, and I may have misheard him. You shouldn't be making a big deal out of this.

As for ACROD's numbers, I never scoffed at their numbers. I merely said that its insignificant when it comes to the overall presence of Orthodoxy in America. That's simply a fact. The only part of the USA where ACROD has a significant presence, is Pennsylvania. Southwest Connecticut, and New Jersey also have significant presence of ACROD parishes/parishioners, but so too for every other Orthodox Church.

Just so you are aware, I am aware of the Orthodox presence in the USA. I'm also not someone who just sticks to my own parish 365 days a year, I have easy and ready access to multiple Orthodox Churches of multiple jurisdictions, and have friends in several of them.

I also have access to the most complete, most accurate and up-to-date study of Orthodoxy in the USA. The "Atlas of American Orthodox Christian Churches" by Alexei Krindatch. I can see, down to the county level, how many adherents each jurisdiction has, and how many parishes in each state every jurisdiction has.

My point isn't that ACROD is completely irrelevant. My point is that if some of these groups, like the Bulgarians, ACROD, ROCOR or the Romanians decide to refuse compliance with a united American Orthodox Church,  it won't be a significant chunk of Orthodox that will be in schism.

Now, I'm willing to bet that from all the smoke that some bishops in some of these jurisdictions are blowing, they are going to be called on their bluff and they are going to back down and submit willingly.
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
GOA - Metropolis of Denver
username! said:
And I'm typing on a phone pardon my typos.
Let's look at acrod facts;
Their bishop is from GOAA and a cradle Greek Orthodox. I doubt he would lead them asunder from a great council's rulings. 
ACROD is a great jurisdiction. Take the local ACROD parish, they sing a plainchant called prostopinije. OCA calls their generic sheet music of prostopinije "carpatho russian chant".  Everyone, yes everyone sings led by a cantor.  It's an uplifting experience compared to listening to a choir and standing there lost in thought. 
ACROD people are very welcoming.
No matter what an autonomous/autochephalos church will allow communities to preserve their small traditions. 
It's wrong to start rumors based on assumptions Devin.
You are mixing the lay life in parishes with church politics. Plus, you are vastly misunderstanding everything that I said.

First of all, if you had actually read what I said, you would see that I wasn't making an assumption or starting a rumor. I merely had misheard Kevin Allen on the podcast.

Second of all, there is a big difference between the piety and beauty of local parishes, and the politics being played by hierarchs. I can walk into a Macedonian, Ukrainian or Greek Old Calendarist parish, and find the people pious, friendly and the services beautiful and moving. But that doesn't change their hierarchs or the canonical state of their church.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,973
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Location
Chicago
88Devin12 said:
The OCA's autocephaly, in the end, doesn't matter. The Assembly of Bishops is going to present a plan to the Great & Holy Council, and that plan will or won't be approved by the bishops at the council. Which it probably will be approved.

It is absolutely ridiculous for people to assume that all churches in North America should be absorbed into the OCA. The solution at this point, is to dissolve every single archdiocese and church in North America, and form a brand new, united church. That is what is probably going to be happening anyway.

When it comes down to it, the OCA doesn't need to participate in the Great & Holy Council, because it probably won't even exist a year after the council is finished. Its autocephaly isn't universally recognized, and that being set aside, it's going to be merged with the other North American churches as it is.

The Assembly of Bishops will be coming up with the plan, and the OCA are participating members of the Assembly, and their voice can be and is heard there. The Assembly will be discussing autocephaly vs. autonomy and probably voting on it. That will also probably be a part of the proposal sent to the Great & Holy Council. If they approve it and our Assembly asks for autocephaly, then I'm willing to bet that whatever solution the Council decides for granting of autocephaly will happen.

Best case would be if we ask for autocephaly and they approve our proposal, that the council just simply agree unianimously on the autocephaly, and the council could grant the autocephaly (since all churches are there represented).

This council will probably cause some to schism, including in North America. But that is just the loss for the people who schism, because they will no longer be in communion with the Orthodox Church.
Like the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia?

There has never been an Ecumenical Council where one canonical Orthodox Church was barred from attending, such a Council by definition not being Ecumenical.  There have been Councils where primates were not represented (like the the Second Ecumenical Council) because of various circumstances, even boycotted (like the the Fifth Ecumenical Council), but NEVER, NEVER one in which canonical bishops, even the lowliest auxiliary chorbishop of the last Church in the diptychs, were BARRED from attending.  AND ONLY Ecumenical Councils are binding.  Hence being "Ecumenical."

There has never even been a Pan-Orthodox Council such as being contemplated here.

So no, neither the OCA nor the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia are bound by anything that has decided at the Phanar this week, anymore than Antioch, which has withheld its consent and assent, is bound.  Like Antioch, CzL&S is recognized as autocephalous and Orthodox by all Orthodox autocephalous Churches, and the OCA now has the recognition both as being canonical and Orthodox per the Chambessy accords signed by all of them, and now the recognition as a body separate from the Moscow Patriarchate-none of its bishops are included with the Moscow component of the ACOBNCA.  There is no authority to compel the OCA, the CzL&S, and much less Antioch, to comply or approve any of this.

At this moment, if a schism occurred, per Canon 8 of Ephesus, the place of the Orthodox would be to stand on the side of the OCA, and not Ultramarist heresy.

88Devin12 said:
ICXCNIKA said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
podkarpatska said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
Fr. George said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
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.

Peace, out.
Since they have apparently agreed to the principle of unanimity, I would be surprised if they solve the problem of the OCA.
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.
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.
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.)

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 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)?

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.
Carl, thank you for your posts. I just wanted to add 2 points. The first is I do not believe that a tomos can be revoked...it can only be surrendered in my opinion. The other point is more of a question. Wouldn't any merger on the part of the OCA have to be approved by an All American Council?
I don't think it would have to be approved by the AAC. All of our bishops are members of the Assembly of Bishops. It's irrelevant on if a tomos can be revoked, it will simply be "surrendered" voluntarily when we merge with all other churches. That future church will then be given autonomy or autocephaly based on the Assembly's proposal to the Great & Holy Council and pending the decisions in that council about autonomy & autocephaly.
No, such would not be the case.

This is not unprecedented: after WWI, a number of autocephalous Churches were merged to form the Serbian and Romanian Patriarchate, and the shared jurisdiction of Greece was signed between Athens and Constantinople.  Each autocepahlous Church, however, had to apply Apostolic Canon 34 to itself to another autocephalous Church: the merger wasn't pending the decision of external Synod.
88Devin12 said:
Any church that chooses to reject and rebel against the decisions of the Assembly & the Great and Holy Council, and chooses to not be a part of the future church will probably be subject to excommunication.
That's not how conciliarity works: no bishop is bound by a Council where, if he is good canonical standing, he is barred from attending.
The OCA, for instance, is not bound by decisions of the Holy Synod of Moscow, because, not being in it per Apostolic Canon 34, none of the OCA bishops are members of the Holy Synod of Moscow, and hence have no right to attend any of its synods.  The Church of Constantinople isn't bound by the decisions of the Holy Synod of Moscow for the same reasons.

In this case, however, the OCA is already recognized as being in good canonical standing by the Chambessy accords which ALL (as the Phanar used to be found of emphasizing, until Abp. Demetrios (Many Years!) seated the OCA) the autocephalous Churches signed.  As such, it cannot be bound by a Synaxis where it isn't allowed in.  Such by definition would be a Robber Council.

88Devin12 said:
At that point, it's irrelevant for us who chooses to split. If they don't want to be a part of the Holy Orthodox Church, that's their choice. If they hold their autonomy/autocephaly or ethnicity higher than unity with Orthodox and canonical status, then they aren't Orthodox after all.
au contraire, the Ultramarists, mandating positions without Ecumenical authority, wouldn't be Orthodox after all.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,973
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Location
Chicago
88Devin12 said:
Why should autonomous churches participate?
Because that was the praxis of EVERY SINGLE Ecumenical and Pan Orthodox Council from Acts 15 until the present day.

88Devin12 said:
That would drastically skew numbers.
LOL.  That is what the proposed scheme is about, hamstringing the dominance of Moscow's living dioceses to remove the penalty of the Phanar dependence on dead dioceses.

88Devin12 said:
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.
Better that that rewarding Churches full of empty dioceses.

Again, as Moscow pointed out, the praxis of EVERY SINGLE Ecumenical and Pan Orthodox Council from Acts 15 until today has been on consensus.  This idea of majority vote the Phanar seems to have borrowed from the Vatican (I & II).  Only then does "skewed numbers" and "slant" become and issue, as the whiffs of stench in this scheme waft up.  Numbers don't matter in consensus.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,973
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Location
Chicago
88Devin12 said:
In any circumstance, I would be happy with autocephaly. But if we have autonomy, I honestly have to say that I want us to be an autocephalous church under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, not Moscow.
Oh? And why is that?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,973
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Basil 320 said:
ialmisry said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
Fr. George said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
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.

Peace, out.
Since they have apparently agreed to the principle of unanimity, I would be surprised if they solve the problem of the OCA.
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.
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.
Exactly, and now that is underlined by the Phanar thinking it can, by its own motion, shut out another Church which, unlike the OCA is recognized as autocephalous by absolutely everyone.

The whole scheme is to sneak in the Phanar's mythology about itself and its "prerogatives."  That said, that doesn't mean something can't be made of it.  Something already has: besides falling into a Catch-22 on the status of the OCA's autocephaly (many years Abp. Demetrios!), it also has solved the issue of knowing whether some parish or bishop was canonical or not.  If we manage to agree on a single thing in Synaxis/Council, the Vatican going to have to adjust its claims on our alleged need of its swelled head.
The Ecumenical Patriarch has the canonical responsibility to hear appeals from within the Holy Orthodox Churches. Traditionally, he convenes Extraordinary Pan-Orthodox Synods to adjudicate such appeals. In this matter concerning the Church of the Czech and Slovak Lands, one of their bishops complained to the Ecumenical Patriarchate about the election conducted for their new primate; a conference has been held without resolution, but the appellate process has not as yet proceeded to the realm of adjudication.
And as such the enthroned and recognized (as Moscow indicated) primate right now has the right to represent his Church.  This isn't the case of the Bulgarian exarch.  At Ephesus the Fathers called Nestorius-and the Phanar's propensity to ignore this primate of hers is duly noted-to attend the Ecumenical Council, which treated him as in good standing until he was proven condemned, and the Fathers of Chalcedon allowed Pope Dioscoros into its midst although Abp. St. Leo-in an early show of Ultramontanism-demanded he be expelled and condemned in abstentia.  New Rome's Ultramarist emulation of Old Rome's Ultramontanism is quite transparent.

This is the only relevant canon I can thing of:
Chalcedon c. 9. If any Clergyman has a dispute with another, let him not leave his own Bishop and resort to secular courts, but let him first submit his case to his own Bishop, or let it be tried by referees chosen by both parties and approved by the Bishop. Let anyone who acts contrary hereto be liable to Canonical penalties. If, on the other hand, a Clergyman has a dispute with his own Bishop, or with some other Bishop, let it be tried by the Synod of the province. But if any Bishop or Clergyman has a dispute with the Metropolitan of the same province, let him apply either to the Exarch of the diocese or to the throne of the imperial capital Constantinople, and let it be tried before him.

(Ap. c. LXXIV; c. VI of the 1st; cc. XVII, XXI of the 4th; cc. XIV, XV of Antioch; cc. VIII, XII, XIV, XV, XXVII, XXVIII, XXXVI, LXXXVII, XCVI, CV, CXV, CXVIII, CXXXIV, CXXXVII, CXXXVIII, CXXXIX.)

Interpretation.

When one clergyman has a dispute with another clergyman, the present Canon prescribes that he must not leave his own bishop and present his case to secular courts, but, on the contrary, he must first present it to his bishop, or else, with the permission and consent of his bishop, he may have his case tried by referees (or chosen judges), with whom both parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, are well pleased. As for any clergyman that does otherwise, let him be subjected by the bishops to canonical penalties. But when a clergyman has a dispute with his own bishop, let the case be tried before the Synod of the province. When, again, a bishop or a clergyman has a dispute with the Metropolitan, let him go to the Exarch of the diocese, or to the throne of the imperial capital Constantinople, and let the case be tried by him.

Canon XVIII of Carthage prescribes that if presbyters and deacons are accused, the presbyter shall choose six, and the deacon three, bishops from neighboring districts, and let their own bishop try their case in conjunction with these others; and that two months’ time shall be allowed them too, and that the persons of their accusers be examined in the same way as in the case of a trial by the bishop alone. But as for the other clergymen, they are to be tried by the local bishop alone. But a single bishop cannot decide the case of any bishop or presbyter or deacon, according to c. CXVIII of the same Ec. C. of Carthage. Canon LXXXVII of the same C. says that if clergymen charged with any crime fail to prove themselves innocent within a year, they shall no longer have the right to present a defense. Canon CXV of the same C. says that if a clergyman quarreling with anyone asks the Emperor for a civil trial court, and refuses to accept the bishop’s decision, he shall be deposed from office. Justinian Novel 123 (found in Book III of the Basilica, Title I, ch. 35) further decrees that anyone who has any matter of dispute to be tried in court with a clergyman, or a monk, or a deaconess, or a nun, or any ascetic woman, he shall first take his case to the bishop to whom the litigants in question are subject; and if the bishop decide the case to the satisfaction of both parties, the ruler (i.e., the civil magistrate) is obliged to carry out the sentence pronounced by the bishop. And in the same Novel, ch. 36, it is declared that if the matter is an ecclesiastical one, the civil magistrates are to have nothing to do with it at all, but only the bishops, in accordance with the Canons, are to decide it. But in the same Novel, ch. 8, it is decreed that "if the accused one is a bishop, his Metropolitan shall examine into the facts of his case; if, on the other hand, the accused one himself is a Metropolitan, the Archbishop to whom he is subject shall examine into the facts of his case; but if the one accused is a presbyter, or a deacon, or a clergyman, or an abbot, or a monk, his bishop shall consider his case, and, according to the gravity of each one’s offense, shall impose the proper Canonical penances (or penalties)." Read also Ap. c. LXXIV and c. VI of the First.
So the bishop has a complaint against the Primate of his Church.  That doesn't change the status of the Primate because a complaint has been lodged.  Especially as the Phanar has no Emperor nor Senate anymore to back it up-the reason why Old Rome isn't mentioned in the canon.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,973
Reaction score
183
Points
63
Location
Chicago
88Devin12 said:
I believe that Kevin Allen, on AF Today a few weeks ago, said that the Antiochians withdrew due to the problems with Jerusalem in Qatar. He also said that ROCOR and some ACROD bishops have said they remain committed to their respected "mother churches" and don't want to leave them, and they were in strong objection to the current proposal for unification.
Which Mother Church of ACROD?
 

kyril

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2014
Messages
239
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Vancouver BC
All of this bickering reminds me of a group of 2 to 4 yr old brats clamouring for the biggest piece of the pie.
And then, on the local level, one hears the whining voice 'It wasn't like that in the 'Old Country.' 
(This from a third or fourth generation Canadian or American who couldn't point to the 'Old Country' on a map; or tell you its current politics.)
"Greece, financial bail-out?" - Russia, Putin, who's that?"

Let the Bishops wave their candles about; but let us get on at the parish level transcend time at the Divine Liturgy; work at the parish with all the chores that need to be done - but that no-one seems to have time for!  --
try reading over the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matt 25? -26?
and maybe putting a bit of it into practice with at least our own people?

Seems to me I read somewhere that 'the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.'
Oh well... :(
 

username!

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
5,090
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Where Iron hydrochloride ruins watersheds
ialmisry said:
88Devin12 said:
I believe that Kevin Allen, on AF Today a few weeks ago, said that the Antiochians withdrew due to the problems with Jerusalem in Qatar. He also said that ROCOR and some ACROD bishops have said they remain committed to their respected "mother churches" and don't want to leave them, and they were in strong objection to the current proposal for unification.
Which Mother Church of ACROD?
Have you read the books on the history of acrod. Your question is of course loaded and obviously a sneer. You know ACROD is and has been commited to Orthodoxy since its formation under the ep.
 

BTRAKAS

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
69
Location
North Royalton, Ohio
88Devin12 said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
^^ I believe that the Bulgarian Patriarchal jurisdiction also rejected a unified church in the near future. I do not know about the Serbian Church, but the Romanian Patriarchate has claimed that she is the only church for Romanians anywhere in the world.
Yeah, and I personally don't think any of this is at risk of preventing a unified church in the United States. Basically from what I've gathered based on the stuff out of Chambesy and since then, is what the Great Council is going to say, is that "You are unifying, or you are excommunicated." So if the Bulgarian, ROCOR, ACROD or Romanian churches in America refuse to comply, they are going to be some serious canonical trouble.

But to be honest, they are negligible in terms of presence in the US & Canada.

ACROD only has 79 parishes, with 10,000 adherents. The Bulgarians only have 20 parishes, with 2,000 adherents. The Romanians only have 31 parishes, with 11,000 adherents. ROCOR is the only "significant" group among these, with 136 parishes and 27,000 adherents.

That's just 266 parishes, and 50,000 adherents. Alltogether, that's only 14% of Orthodox parishes, and 6% of Orthodox adherents in the USA & Canada.

So while it may be several groups, it isn't a large number of them who are threatening to a refusal to comply with the Assembly & the Great and Holy Council.
I very much doubt that the "Holy and Great Synod (Council) of the Orthodox Church" will excommunicate the churches that choose not to participate in the unified administrative structure of an Eastern Orthodox Christian Church of North & Central America, understanding that the new administratively united church will be a big step. The Holy and Great Synod would not desire their actions to be the cause of schism, and given the 96 year history of the overlapping ecclesial jurisdictions on the continent, there would be a reluctant understanding for why the churches would chose not to join in at this time. They will probably extend an open invitation to the churches that chose not to join, likely ROCOR and the Bulgarian diaspora archdiocese, to join at a later time, while maintaining loving communal relations with them. Recall too, while ROCOR has advised it would not join into the new administratively united church, it also stated it would maintain its participation in ACOB. And I wouldn't be surprised if in the next two years or so, the Bulgarian archdiocese isn't convinced to rescind its decision not to participate in the new unified church organization, ROCOR perhaps, too.
 
Top