Scott, I know you weren’t. Your post gave me a chance to clarify my own position, that’s all.

I like that too, “motion masquerading as progress”.

Dean, yeah, it may well be a waste of money.

George, I wasn’t denigrating the “cheerleaders for unity”, just suggesting caution. It’s a matter of good faith divergence, I believe, as to how best to proceed. Some want unity soon, to others like myself praxis is a greater concern. Regardless, God will lead us where He wants us to go in His own good time.

Agreed. – or as I said the other day, if they are not going to continue the work of the first American Council of Orthodox bishops, Ligonier, they should all stay home and give the money to the poor.

And Greg – re: motion masquerading as progress. I’m just plain stealing that one…!!!

Best Regards,
dean

Scott, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Speaking as a “cheerleader for unity” myself, I don’t believe in unity for the sake of unity. Jesus in the High Priestly prayer prayed that his disciples might “be as one” as a manifestation of their love for one another, even as “he and his Father were one.” True unity will proceed because the Orthodox people in the various naitions (not “regions”) wish to overcomee their differences and come together in a spirit of unity and love. And not because of fear of some chimeral “great and holy synod” which will “impose” a structure upon them. What a terribly unChristian terminology that is being used to frighten the people of God into “unity.” (Especially when we know that many of these patriarchates want nothing of the kind. Woe.)

Well said, Isa. When the history of the Americna Orthodox Church is written in the final analysis, the people of God then reading it will why supposedly canonical bishops in North America were left out of the process. They will probably come to unsettling conclusions about the character of the men in charge.

Or, as I like to say: motion masquerading as progress.

… to give the appearance of forward movement while simply moving sideways.

What this means is that for the EA to actually bear any fruit whatsoever; i.e., for it to have any relevance at all, it would need to be taken over by pro-autocephaly bishops and “exceed the breadth of its portfolio”.

Now, I’m not a cheerleader for a united autocephalous church in America. But if I were, I wouldn’t get too excited about the EA. I’m trying to imagine a situation where any but a very few bishops outside the OCA (maybe a couple from the AOCNA) would push for united autocephaly. I doubt any of the Greeks would. Most of the Antiochians would not. There are parallel jurisdictions among some of the Slavs and Romanians (one in OCA, one under the national Patriarch). We know the Romanians aren’t interested and any of the non-OCA, Slavic jurisdictions wouldn’t need an EA to merge with their OCA counterparts if they wished. Even ROCOR, in all likelihood, would proceed outside the frame of the EA if it wished to merge with the OCA.

Now, what is equally clear to me is that GOARCH will find itself alone in any enthusiasm regarding forging jurisdictional unity under Constantinople. Few if any of the bishops of the other jurisdictions here or their patriarchs and synods would climb on board that bus.

So . . . I’m at a loss as to what can result from this EA. Met. Phillip seems to be as well. I once remarked that the purpose – – the entire purpose – – of having this EA, at least from Constantinople’s standpoint, was to give the appearance of forward movement while simply moving sideways.

I would encourage those here and those writing the cheerleading articles for united autocephaly or about the profound significance of the EA to calm themselves and try to imagine a practical scenario that would yield any real news from this process. I’m not sure the EA even has the potential to do anything of significance.