Comments on: AsiaNews: ‘Historic’ decision in Chambésy

By: Isa Almisry

Isa Almisry — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:39:01 +0000

In reply to Kevin Allen. Now that the council hasn't proved the rubber stamp the EP wanted, we see HAH lost that gamble.

By: George Michalopulos

George Michalopulos — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:41:54 +0000

Zizioulis wrote a fantastic book, called “Being as Communion.” He’s enlightened many (me included) about the proper role of the episcopacy and how Christianity is an organic process, which arises from and extends to the diocese. How the bishop is the presider-in-love of the diocese and the pastor.

His work directed me to disovering more about the primitive Church and how each diocese was autocephalous. See for example the works of Fr John Erickson (“The Challenge of our Past”), Meyendorff (Rome, Constantinople, and Moscow”), etc. The present top-down approach of patriarch-metropolitan-archbishop-bishop is quite bogus.

By: Kevin Allen

Kevin Allen — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:31:04 +0000

I take my hat off to the E.P. for bringing this meeting together in the first place. Whatever one ascribes to be underlying motives, I think it was historic as the article states and courageous on the part of the E.P. In some ways, the E.P. has everything to lose by bringing such an issue to the collective episcopal table! I think the E.P. exercised his authority as "first-among equals" well indeed, when he convened a conciliar conclave such as Chambesy (2009) to address such a politically prickly issue. I also think having Metropolitan John (Zizioulas)chair the meeting was a brilliant stroke. As I understand it, he is widely respected on most fronts.

By: Fr. Johannes Jacobse

Fr. Johannes Jacobse — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:33:22 +0000

Wesley, I think the only conclusion you can draw from the meeting is that the argument that the Greek pedigree of the Ecumenical Patriachate grants universal jurisdiction over the “disapora” because of the universal character of Hellenistic ideals has fallen by the wayside.

Having said that, the suggestion to make some sort of episcopal synod in the “diaspora” is encouraging because at least it is official confirmation that the status quo in America and other places is not sufficient. How they will be administered remains to be seen.

Yes, the term “diaspora” is wholly unworkable. It is used in two senses I think. From the Constantinopolitan side it is used in the same sense the Jews use it — a dispersion of people united by ethnicity/race; from the other side it functions as diplomatic shorthand to describe the countries where Orthodoxy is still fractured by jurisdictional divisions, like America.

I think that the increasing secularization of Christendom as well as the increasing threat of Moslem domination is one of the drivers behind meetings like this. The Russian Orthodox Church has been the most clear on these issues with warnings and analysis as good as Rome has offered in recent years. The Greek Orthodox Church lags behind. The difficult circumstances of the Ecumenical Patriarchate no doubt factors into this.

By: George Michalopulos

George Michalopulos — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:13:03 +0000

Wesley, the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that there’s less here than meets the eye. Just last nite, I read a complaint from a Ukrainaian (MP) bishop that Ukraine was being sold down the river by the MP. This makes absolutely no sense because the MP’s brank of the Uk Church is by far the largest. I can’t see +Kirill giving up the UOC (esp when all of the anti-OCAers said that he was going to consolidate his hold over the UOC in exchange for giving up the OCA). If this is true, then everybody was wrong about Ukraine. This would also mean that the OCA is going to be aggrandized as opposed to the UOC which will be emancipated from the MP. This situation was never in the cards.

Instead, I have a feeling that a lot of feelers are being put out, and even some provocations (like the UOC bishop mentioned above) in order to marshall anti-this forces against anti-that forces.

So I stand by what I said last nite, probably nothing is going to happen in N America or W Europe based on way too much acrimony. In E Asia, Oceania, S America, that’s a different story and I image the Chambesy model will stand.

But we’ll see.

Your points are correct however. Reviving the Byzantine model in N America is going to be so counter-evangelistic that it’s not even funny.

By: Wesley J. Smith

Wesley J. Smith — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:03:30 +0000

How does this move us toward a united American Orthodox Church, particularly since American and other “diaspora” voices were not allowed to be present? Moreover, considering the growth in conversion of Americans to Orthodoxy, including this commenter, is the term “diaspora” even accurate any more?