As I’ve said in other venues, it is unfathomable to me how a foreign religious leader can come to another country and claim patronage over its resources. This is niggardly to the extreme.

I only hope that given the miniscule numbers of Orthodox in America, this entire dog-and-pony show is going to be completely ignored by all media.

As of August 15, 2009, neither had his Beatitude been informed officially of the decisions of Chambesy, nor invited in their implementation.

Estonia was the poor excuse the EP used to cover its disdain for what the OCA represents: children growing up and leaving the nest. Unfortunately, HB Met. Jonah isn’t a mama’s boy.

Estonia is indicative of the real debate:that between Constantinople and Moscow. Every pawn has to be seen in this light.

The EP might come here and find town hall meetings.

I realize he wasn’t invited because the Estonian primate wasn’t invited. But that’s politics, not conciliarity.

RE the “Conference was convened… with the consensus of Their Beatitudes the Primates of the Most Holy Orthodox Churches.”

I thought that this phrase meant that everyone who needed to be there was there. Apparently not.

Who decides which people need to be at these high level confabs?

In my reading about Orthodoxy I thought:

1. That the Primates were the bishops highest up the ladder in their respective Church.
2. That the Primates represented all the Orthodox people within their respective Churches (Russian, Greek, Antioch, etc.)
3. That every Orthodox person – whether in the U.S., Finland, Japan, etc. – was represented by a Primate.
3. That the head of every Autonomous and Autocephalous church was a Primate.

Apparently it is a little more nuanced than that.

Greg

P.S. the use of titular bishops also is problematic. These are bishops without sees, therefore there are no churches or people whom they “preside” over. So the degree of representation continues to abate under such circumstances.

RE … the Chambesy counsellors were not representative…

Please clarify.

Your statement above seems to be at odds with the letter itself which states that the “Conference was convened… with the consensus of Their Beatitudes the Primates of the Most Holy Orthodox Churches.”

Am I missing something?

Greg

I really can’t answer it except in this way: since the Chambesy counsellors were not representative, and more than a few were titular bishops themselves, then such a scenario raises uncomfortable questions.

Also, even if the results were correct (and I think they may be), it’s the old “ends justifying the means” argument.

does that help?

geo

You didn’t answer my question.

Although… maybe you did.

Thanks for some more to ponder.

Greg

However, it should be noted that this latest meeting appears to be a spinning of the wheels. If you go to http://www.ocl.org, you will see that a similar such meeting took place over twenty years ago, and they came to more or less the same conclusions.

Also, the absence of canonical bishops from the lands in question is VERY problematic.

geo

George,

RE Can I imagine a different scenario? yes, that the Holy Spirit illumines the bishops at the upcoming Great Council and they realize the error of their ways

I hope I can ask some questions without sounding smart-alecky: On what basis do you think that the Patriarch’s were not guided by the Holy Spirit when they produced this Chambesy statement on the diaspora?

After all, we are not talking about a few priests getting together on-the-fly and publishing something. We are talking about “Patriarch Bartholomew, with the consensus of Their Beatitudes the Primates of the Most Holy Orthodox Churches” and the documents they discussed have been around since 1990 and 1993. It certainly seems, at least to an outsider, that this decision was arrived at by the highest level of the Orthodox Church and with a significant amount of time to ponder the answer.

I assume that, as with every Christian gathering I’ve ever been to, the people at the Chambesy conference asked for the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Why isn’t it reasonable to assume that the answer arrived at is the answer God wants the Orthodox Church to have?

Thanks.

Greg
(I’m not Orthodox, but I’m interested in the discussion.)

Sorry…I forgot!!!

Too funny.

Best Regards,
Dean

Don’t encourage people. The EP is a big fan of the Cuban way of doing things. Lets not make things worse.

excellent analogies. I think SCOBA was OK when it started in the 60s as at least a starting point. It might have really taken off had they stuck to their original schedule of rotating chairman. This would have shown good faith. But under Spyridon and now Demetrius, it has become a Constantinopolitan dog-and-pony show highlighting the natural Byzantine supremacy which everybody likes and needs.

You’re right: it was a damn shame that somebody from SCOBA didn’t show up at Chambesy.

Therefore, I still stand by my earlier prediction: that such an episcopal conference in North America is probably a non-starter. If it meets at all, it’ll probably become obvious after the first year that it’s just a super-SCOBA with certain topics off-the-table. Hence, it’ll probably just die on the vine.

On another note, I keep hearing how the GOA is the major financial contributor to the various SCOBA ministries. If true, then I’d like to propose a more equitable system that puts ALL of the jurisdictions equally on the hoof: Let’s consolidate all dioceses in North America into one admninistratively united, autocephalous church, with non-overlapping territorial dioceses, and assess EVERY parish a percentage of their budget to go straight for all SCOBA ministries. (Missions would be exempt from this scheme.)

Let’s continue this thought experiment: how about 1% of a parish’s monthly budget going to the SCOBA ministries? 10% of the parish’s budget would go to the diocese. The diocese would remit to the patriarchate in Washington perhaps 5% of its total budget and keep 5% for its own functioning. Each diocese would come up with its own allocation for mission stations, missions and lending to parishes for building projects. A wealthy diocese could set up its own seminary.

As for SCOBA, it could decentralize its national ministries (i.e. not the IOCC and OCMC) and work hand-in-glove with the dioceses rather than out of a central office. How else are you going to do OCF, or prison ministries, etc?

Anyway, what do y’all think?

The way I read it, the Old World thinks SCOBA has been such a phenomenal success that they are expanding the idea.

Aside from the pomposity of the whole idea (that the Old World is going to impose this kind of structure on the Orthodox Oecumene), and the fact that the OCA would appear to be an anomaly in their plan…it also seems to me to be impractical.

Let’s see…once a year the entire assembly will meet. At those meetings, the rep of the EP will preside – in America presumably Abp Demetrios. It is an honorary position, presumably.

However, for the rest of the year, the Executive Committee of the Assembly will meet as needed. The E.C. being the primates of the various jurisdictions.

So…SCOBA has been such a tremendous success, we are duplicating the idea worldwide.

Good luck with that.

I think the message needs to go back to the Old World loud and clear: The age of despotism is over. Perhaps you’d prefer to go back to the Dark Ages, but it’s not gonna happen.

I’m also beginning wondering if we should replace the double headed eagle with the “Don’t Tread on Me!” insignia?

Best Regards,
R U Kidding me

PS I continue to believe the saddest commentary on SCOBA is that it was not present at those Chambesy meetings. Think about that one…the prototype of the new system is so bankrupt that it didn’t present any ideas.

This is like going to Cuba for health care ideas!!!