George Matsoukas: The Episcopal Assembly — Is it Stalled? Let the Work Begin

Comments

9 responses to “George Matsoukas: The Episcopal Assembly — Is it Stalled? Let the Work Begin”

1. Fr. Peter

   October 13, 2010

   George,

   These are wonderful questions thank you for asking them. I know that I have been asked by my bishop if I would be willing to serve and he suggested 2 committees that I could be helpful on. I also know that my bishop has submitted his suggestions for his committee assignments. So from the Romanian perspective we are doing our work.

   Again, thanks for asking the questions.

   Reply
2. George Michalopulos

   October 13, 2010

   I have a rhetorical question: Does anybody remember any type of recriminations asked in the wake of the original Ligonier Conference? Any backbiting? Any regrets by any of the participants? I can’t. Is it possible that this is because the Holy Spirit was the driving force behind Ligonier but byzantine machinations, canonical one-upsmanship, fear, greed, and pride appear to be the force behind the regional Episcopal Assemblies?

   Maybe the title of this thread should be called “Chambesy Bankrupt, Part II”?

   Again, I’d love to be proven wrong.

   Reply
3. Harry Coin

   October 13, 2010

   Met. Philip’s ‘move’ subordinating bishops under him as mentioned in his interview might suggest a reason for the assembly’s lack of progress: To participate is to accept defacto Turkish control. With the bishops under Philip they can’t be ordered about, picked off or played against one another as we see in the GOA. The ‘power difference’ between a ‘lone bishop’ and the ‘EP’ is vastish in the rarified air of flowery language prized among those mostly overseas who swoon over ‘theories of primacy’ (nevermind most of the Christian world including a supermajority of Orthodoxy puts that in the same priority need category as ‘fat monk’ or ‘tuna-and-grape-jelly sandwich’).

   In contrast we have the OCA whose leader and synod have the unassailable defacto and significantly dejure status of autocephalous. They each are already ‘more equal’ than the foreign-owned bishops and the leader of their synod stands legalistically taller than all of them from that point of view– whereever they ask him to sit defines the ‘head’ of the jurisdictional table no matter where the staff puts a microphone or elevates the chairs.

   Philip’s ‘collection’ puts him and in a strange way the entire ‘Antiochian’ (Damascian?) group in the USA roughly in nearly the same stronger-hand position as the OCA. No intrigues now swapping short-term boons in exchange for ‘not obstructing’ can defacto leave them long term under Turkish dominated decision making. There has been much commentary about the other two sides of that ‘auxualliaries really shazaam!’ move, but perhaps absent this foreign controlled EA thing it never would have been felt necessary.

   Anyhow the answer to the pace issue George Matsoukas raises is plain and revealed by Met. Philip: The presumption of being controlled from afar in exchange for ‘permission’ to speak among themselves in unquestioned acceptance of the EA ‘process’.

   You really have to wonder about that don’t you? Bishops needing and seeking permission to speak to their brothers. How actual here is what the texts say Orthodox Christianity ought to be anyhow? Bishops with a mass infection of speech impediments among ‘their’ brothers while one-to-many communications downward to ‘their priests’ — no shortages. Historically this appears about at the same time ‘ordained young never married’ begins to predominate.

   Ligonier mapped a way to a sustainable future.

   Reply
   1. George Michalopulos

      October 13, 2010

      Harry, because of your insights, I am now convinced that Ligonier was the only way to achieve unification. It was organic for one thing, not like this hideously deformed jackalope that’s been cobbled together at Chambesy.

      Just think, thanks to the Old World patriarchates and their over-reaction to Ligonier, we’ve already lost half of a generation. sigh.

      Reply
4. Kevin Allen

   October 13, 2010

   Harry,

   “…but perhaps absent this foreign controlled EA thing it never would have been felt necessary…”

   This is a very interesting speculation. The sense I got from comments both on and off the record is that the “tightening of the reins” so to speak with regard to the on and off title of bishops, is directly related to the concerns of the Holy See of Antioch that the E.A. is an unbridled attempt by the Phanar to “take over” the “diaspora” (and that ‘fragmentation’ of the episcopasy as they conceive it, will potentially aid and abet such). Although Met Philip did not confirm this directly when I asked him, he did say, “I heard this from many bishops in the Middle East…” (which in Byzantine-speak is as good as saying “yes”), and it was clear to me from his attitude, etc. that this is what he believes. What is still unclear to me – and apparently unclear to H.E. Philip — is why Antioch agreed to the terms and conditions of the pre-conciliar Chambesy IV documents, that set-up the E.A., without reading them! This to me was the revelation of the interview!

   Reply
   1. Harry Coin

      October 13, 2010

      Kevin, Perhaps the reason he and others are somewhat locally participating, while generating the basis for later foreign denial of approval– is the possibility that the outcome will be a good one and they’ll want the chance to support it, or at least not be the one to ‘blame’ for it failing.

      You know how this goes, this stuff makes Plato’s shadows and the kabuki dances look like nursery room bouncy chairs. It’s so complex those involved who think they understand fourteen moves ahead notice a leaf passing in a stream stem side first rotating to leaf point first and change their whole strategy.

      The overall thing to notice here is: A strong, sane, sober move by lots of laity can generate the sense of dread only a high school parade leader can have turning off into an alley while all confiddled and confunded– looking over his shoulder wondering whether anybody is still following him. If the laity do a strong sober thing I guarantee you these fellows will have been with ‘them’ , now ‘us’ from day one.

      Reply
5. George Michalopulos

   October 13, 2010

   Kevin, you are to be commended for a fine interview. It’s not what all of us wanted to hear, and much of what I heard (at least) revolted me, especially the defenstration of +Mark. (Don’t even get me started on the financial shenanigans –same old Levantine BS “…the highest authorities…”). Nevertheless, you fleshed out the picture for us and you asked much harder questions that last year’s puff-piece which was something you’d hear on North Korean Radio. If nothing else, your interview confirmed to us what the fears are of Damascus. As to why they chose not to read the Chambesy documents, maybe they knew it was a waste of time?

   Having said that, I think +Philip’s fears are misplaced. It is becoming increasingly clear that the EAs will probably not amount to much. SCOBA is already beginning to look like a golden age in retropect. If such a scenario plays out, then the egregious ecclesial atrocity that he perpetrated against all of the diocesan bishops (and not just +Mark) will make him look tyrannical in retrospect.

   This is sad because it would besmirch an otherwise fine ecclesiastical career.

   Reply
6. Andrew

   October 13, 2010

   Instead of worrying about various committees, OCL should be taking the lead on transparency issues and the EA. Lets get the EA broadcast. Lets get the budgets and funding sources posted. Lets the the names of the folks who are paid out of the EA money pot. Lets get a sense of what the expenses are.
   OCL has a chance to do this…. the question is will they rise to the challenge.

   Reply
7. George Michalopulos

   October 17, 2010

   Andrew, I see now that the EA for North America finally has a website up. I wonder if all our agitation (plus George Matsoukas’ on the OCL) had anything to do with it finally getting set up? Something tells me that this is indeed the case.

   I wouldn’t say it’s “up and running” by any stretch of the imagination as it has the bare minimum of information. Look at SCOBA’s: it’s interactive, voluminous, etc. (Couldn’t they have overtaken SCOBA’s website and done some minor editing?) It appears hasty as it has the bare minimum of information, just what’s already been released on OCL (photo, founding document, etc.). When you click on “committees” there’s nothing there for instance.

   If my suspcicions are correct, then I would recommend that we continue agitating for more –changes, reforms, activity, meetings, encyclicals, etc.

   Reply