there is no canon which grants only the EP to grant autocephaly. Trust me, if there was, they’d be trotting it out ad infinitum (just as they do canon 28). I almost really wish there was, at least then there’d be none of this incessant bickering.

Kali Anastasi to you and yours, too.

How did things work out with your Turkish friend?

Re: Personally, I vote for Jerusalem or Sinai – they need our help as much or more than does Constantinople and they are more ‘neutral’ territory ethnically, more ‘universal’.

I like your idea. Personally, I’ve always thought we needed to start a brand new jurisdiction, maybe go under the Cypriot or Czech churches – but I really like the idea of Sinai….I’m sure they could use the funds.

The Greek shipping magnates have been playing this game for years…I’m looking up “flag of convenience” in The Rudder – I’ll report back after Pascha.

LOL

Kali Anastasi,
Dean

There seems to be a lot of misinformation floating around out there so maybe there are some people who do not see this issue so clearly.

The Greeks were not in North America first, the Russians were. Moreover, they came here to evangelize and did so. On top of that the jurisdiction of the ROC was widely recognized here before the Revolution by the other ethnic presences including many of the Greeks. So really, there is no serious case to be made that the Greeks had the EP’s present understanding of Constantinople’s perogatives.

But the question of Russian preeminence here is actually beside the point. The Russians don’t make jurisdictional claims here because they granted autocephaly to the OCA (not abandoning it as you assert, again, more faulty information).

I would be very interested to see which canon you’re asserting gives Constantinople the exclusive right to recognize autocephaly. I don’t have my own copy of the Rudder so perhaps I missed that one.

Really, the whole matter is silly. Constantinople has no power to coerce the other jurisdictions to unite under it. It has no right to do so based on Canon 28. It’s just whistling Dixie – – impotently.

Those in the Phanar can posture and make claims that do violence to the text of the canon and are absurd historically. It just makes them look small and immature.

There are two serious possibilities: 1) we continue as we are now 2) some or all of the jurisdictions unite into an autocephalous American Orthodox Church.

Enough breath has been wasted on this nonsense.

I must take issue with your assessment that the “Russians abandoned the Metropolia.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. Admittedly, the murderous, atheist Bolsheviks did everything they could to destroy the Church in Russia, so under these horrible conditions, you could say that America was “abandoned” but that’s like saying a man who was kidnapped by pirates and sold into slavery abandoned his family.

Luckily, the Metropolia survived (if by the skin of its teeth). Even in the place of extreme hardship, it maintained its evangelistic mission.

As for who served the most immigrant groups, again, the hands-down winner is the Metropolia. They set up an Arab diocese and were going to set up a Serbian one as well, but WWI took over. There was talk about setting up a Greek one as well. Sure, the Serbs left but they came back when their demands were met. I was surprised how from the mid-1800s English was served, converts were brought in and ethnic priests were made vicars. (A Greek priest was in the Metropolia as a vicar in the late nineteenth century.)

Did the Metropolia retrench after WWI and start serving primarily the Russians and Carpatho-Russians? Yeah, but get this: they also translated the liturgies into English, acknowledged the Western Rite Liturgy (the “Liturgy of St Tikhon”), started recognizing Western saints, and so on. All in the 1920s! This was evangelism pure and simple.
30 years before Metropolitan Antony Bashir of the Lebanese started evangelizing and 60 years before the Greek-Americans heard a liturgy in English.

Of course, none of it matters to the EP if they stick to their interpretation of Canon 28.

Personally, I don’t think it matters who was here first as much as who actually did the work of the Church here successfully, who established the most parishes, who sent priests and bishops, who started a monastery, who translated texts, and who served more than their own immigrant group (they that evangelize are Church).

It would be interesting to know what the reaction in Serbia was to the Serbs in the US seeking to leave the Russians and start their own diocese.

Of course, at the end of the day I think all these questions are moot re Moscow. They essentially abandoned the Metropolia, and the Metropolia fell back on serving their own people (Russians, Carpatho-Rusyns) leaving the other ethnicities to fend for themselves. Everyone has a seat at the table now meaning we simply have to choose what is best for the Mission of the Church in North America. Personally, I vote for Jerusalem or Sinai – they need our help as much or more than does Constantinople and they are more ‘neutral’ territory ethnically, more ‘universal’.

quick question, who blessed the Greek Orthodox church in New Orleans? I’ve been trying to find out, a friend actually called, but nobody at that church knew.

I’m Greek, proud of it, but the Greeks weren’t here first in the United States. Plus, New Orleans was in LA, part of the Confederacy.

Here is another difference of understanding.

The EP has historically understood itself as the arbiter of autocephaly. Rightly or wrongly, this is a time honored tradition going back to the days when it saw itself as the touchstone of Orthodoxy in all the East. One of the ECs gave it a role like that – over the other Patriarchates, too – in the East. Under the Ottomans this expanded from being a ‘court of last appeal’ in the East due to the EP being also the political leader of all Orthodox in the Empire. So, there have been a few centuries where the EP really called all the shots. Autocephaly was as much political rebellion as anything else. Conciliarity demands that the Orthodox seek consensus, but most times autocephaly was simple proclaimed and then recognition of such was sought (long) after the fact. They still see it as their prerogative to recognize it or not, though.

Most local churches do not agree with this understanding.

The EP does not view North America as solely the “territory” of another Patriarchate. because they had Greeks here before the Russia had Russians, and because they had the first parish in New Orleans before Alaska or California were part of the US, they see all of North America as ‘theirs’. The fact that the Russians quickly spread across the US, had a ton of parishes and had bishops assigned here and serving multiethnic communities does not undermine their opinion.

North America is a big place. Planting a flag in one corner doesn’t give any church ‘dibbs’ on the whole continent. That’s as true of Russians along the coast of Alaska as it is for Greeks in New Orleans.

Personally, I think numbers of parishes and bishops asigned in the US should determine things. For instance, there was a ‘Russian’ bishop in Boston before the Greeks set up a bishop there; the exact reverse of what Met. Methodios of Boston broke communion with the OCA over in 2005. Figure out the map of who got there first and stayed put (e.g., the Russians opened then closed a parish in NYC and the Greeks opened Holy Trinity after that and have been there ever since – they get NYC) and give that territory to that local church. We can do horse trading along the edges to make things a little contiguous. There’s no reason why the whole continent has to go to one local church or to an autonomous or autocephalous church; split it up state by staet, county by county, region by region – split it down the middle or from left to right, along the Sierras and the Appalachian Mountains. All the canons require is ‘one city, one bishop’ and nothing more, really.

I didn’t say they were small things, just different things.

When folks at the EP hear of people wanting an autocephalous or autonomous church, or that refuse to even consider being under the omophorion of the EP they are hurt by what they feel as derision of this venerable Church. ‘Why do you want to break from us? Why don’t you want to help us?’ is what is often heard.

Orthodox in America need to remember that we are all under a bishop and Synod, and that for much of Orthodox history the various Patriarchates were multicultural and transnational. It is only recently that monocultural local churches have become more standard. There is no canonical guarantee that each people or nation have their own local church. I fear that is something born of both the break-up of the Ottoman Empire and a Wilsonian political view of the self-determination of peoples. That is, it is not a purely Orthodox position.

At the same time, the EP needs to understand that its modern understanding of Canon 28 has engendered and is engendering a great deal of ill will and animosity against it. It is also undermining its credibility as a reliable touchstone of unbiased, objective Orthodoxy. It comes off as trading on its past glories and unquestioned Orthodoxy for the sake of its own private concerns. It makes Orthodox around the world not want to help if all they are doing is propping up a would-be tyrant who will – as an institution, not a person – do anything to survive. Such has been question in the minds of Slavs since the Council of Florence; the Ottoman years did nothing to allay that suspicion given the corruption that went on between the various Phanariote parties as they jockeyed to get their candidates named Patriarch (at great expense).

The Slavs fared little better than the Phanariotes under the Ottomans in the ‘purity’ of their hierarchs actions under the Soviet Union and its puppet states. That being true, it isn’t right and neither side should claim innocence.

Also, the EP does need our help. We should be willing to help. We should not be afraid of becoming part of its territory, especially if that would help in its bid for survival. We should also be giving to it and other local churches in the same way the Apostle Paul gathered alms from his converts to bring back to Jerusalem.

What needs to be gotten past is the idea that the Church is primarily concerned with only certain peoples and cultures, and that liturgical immersion in another language can somehow teach a language (not) or preserve a culture in a secular, multicultural Western world. (The situation under the Ottomans was different in that the Turks invaded and took over formerly Greek territory; they were preserving their indigenous culture. That is not the situation in the West where they are minority immigrants that are not segregated into special quarters.)

What needs to be realized by the hierarchs and clergy is that each and every parish needs to be focused on meeting the needs of each and every Orthodox Christian in the region (regardless of culture or language; English will come to dominate because it will be the one common language shared by all the Orthodox here – French in Quebec, perhaps, Spanish in Mexico). Each and every parish also needs to focus as much on the Orthodox and non-Orthodox that do not attend, do not vote, do not give as they do on the favorites, the rich and the voting. Right now each parish and jurisdiction tends to focus on who it thinks is ‘their people’ – Greek, Russian, American, Evangelical, Catholic, Byzatine Catholic, counter-culture, Arab, educated, etc. The Church has to be for all people first, and then only pastorally to the specific needs of particular constituencies.

Because Americans – of whatever ethnic background, convert and cradle – do not see this being done in the GOA, they have little trust that the EP and his Metropolitans here will do this in the future. Once the GOA starts acting like the Orthodox Church, first, and not the Orthodox Church for Greeks and Greek-Americans in preservation of Greek culture then the EP will see a lot of the angst surrounding him evaporate. (And, after he stops the shenanigans regarding Canon 28 which just makes him look dishonest and legalistically untrustworthy).

Chris, out of curiosity, what is the difference you have in mind? It seems to me that the EP’s claim to the jurisdiction over all the areas not given to other Churches is based on Canon 28. To me, that’s the crux of the issue.

Why would Fr. Elpidophoros assert that the only canonical authority here in America is the EP? Why would he claim that the OCA is not autocephalous even though their Mother Church has granted them this status? Why would the EP interfere in the territories of other Patriarchates?

I don’t see this as a small issue. It has the potential to become as big as the differences with Rome at the end of the first millenium.

I would submit though that the real problem was not the obedience, but the abuse by the abbot. Surely, the monk did the right thing.

Yes, the abuse by the abbott was the problem, but only partially for my friend. His dilemma was how to reconcile his vow of obedience to the abuse he suffered. It was resolved when he realized that freedom precedes obedience. He saw the demand for obedience as the coercion that is was, and the abbott’s grip was broken. My friend was free to move forward with his life in Christ, which he proceeded to do.

Other thoughts:

I don’t like being referred to as a barbarian, which is what appeal to Canon 28 does.

This kind of language magnifies the feeling among the Orthodox xenoi that Greeks and the Phanar think they are almost inherently better, more mature, more Christian and Orthodox than all other Orthodox Christian and local, autocephalous Orthodox churches.

Appeals to ‘obedience’ based on this didn’t work with any of the other local churches that took their autocephaly for themselves only to receive Constantinople’s recognition later (Russia, Greece, etc.). This kind of obedience is different than the regular sort of blessed obedience we are called on to offer our holy father the bishop. These are being conflated.

I don’t like the fact that everyone keeps arguing for ‘ethnic dioceses’ and ‘administrative unity’.

Administrative unity is not the issue. The canons of the Church are the issue, which require one bishop for one city (or diocese). This is simply the ecclesiology inherent in the Apostle Paul: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28) We are to gather together as one people of God, one Church, around our one bishop in the place of Christ. We are not to wall ourselves off into ethnic enclaves living side by side with each other in the same city with different bishops. The creation of ethnic dioceses (as in the OCA) or jurisdictional eparchies (as under the EP) fly in the face of the canons by creating geographical dioceses where various parishes and individuals report into a

(When ethnic eparchies are then structured under the ethnic Greek eparchy – as with the Jerusalem churches in the US, for instance [not sure about the Ukrainians and Carpatho-Rusyns] – this magnifies further the ‘feeling’ that the EP sees Greeks as being ‘more Orthodox’ than all other Orthodox. This was the error of the Phanariotes in the Ottoman Empire that engendered such ill will between Greek and non-Greek Orthodox Christians.)

I don’t think ‘immature’ is a good way to label American Orthodox that do not agree with Constantinople, IF unity, brotherhood, etc. is the end goal. This is not an appealing argument.

I wish Constantinople and her supporters would temper using the EP as the touchstone of Orthodoxy. There are innumerable examples of Orthodox Christians and local churches disagreeing strenuously to many of the actions and positions of the EP over the course of the 20th century. Mount Athos is a prime example on the EP’s own territory.

I also wish that there were greater acknowledgment of the fact that the EP of today is in a far different position than it was prior to WWI. In some ways better, in many ways worse. The prime difference being the loss of all but a remnant of his flock in the traditional jurisdiction of the EP due especially to the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey, but also to the 1955 pogrom against the Greeks in Istanbul. This has clearly affected Constantinople’s view of Canon 28 and its continuation as not only a Patriarchate but as a local church at all – unless believers and jurisdiction elsewhere were granted to it.

I’m not sure why the EP can’t simply come out and say, ‘Help us. Help the Church of the Queen of Cities. We may not survive without you.’ This is a call that most American Orthodox would respond to, especially if the canonical bluff and bluster regarding Canon 28 were put aside. For some, autonomy or autocephaly are the only possible choices; for many – including myself – this is not the case. I am perfectly fine being ‘under’ any local church. Heck, I’m already ‘under’ my local bishop and the Synod of my jurisdiction. I just want to be under a Synod that cares as much about Orthodoxy, about the non-Orthodox, about all ethnicities of Orthodox Christians, about converts and cradle, as about the historic nature and prerogatives of a single local Church that is practically co-equal (it seems) with a specific ethnicity.

I wish the Ecumenical Patriarch acted more ecumenically within Orthodoxy. I wish I saw in the GOA and his eparchies abroad a vigorous concern for more than the ethnic groups, their culture and languages, those eparchies were created to serve. I want a Patriarch that understands that all of us in a given city, region, country have to be Orthodox together rather than ‘separate, but equal’ in obedience to the Ecumenical Throne (or any other).

Makes much more sense to unite all the jurisdictions here into one American Orthodox Church. The obstacles to this are 1) the lust for power, 2) ethnocentricity and 3)xenophobia. While I don’t think that jurisdictional unity is as important as some here do, it strikes me as a step backward to unite under the EP (especially in light of his false claims, which should be denied vigorously).

Isn’t this whole dispute absurd? I have to disagree with those here who don’t think it is appropriate to question motives. I’ve never heard anything resembling a plausible case for the EP’s claims and to me they do not pass the laugh test. I just can’t believe that the Phanar itself seriously believes in such a far fetched theory. They seem to have carried this idea forward for motives of power and money.

If anyone here can show that the EP’s claims regarding its perogatives under Canon 28 have any solid pedigree at all prior to the 1920’s, please volunteer that information or a link to it. Otherwise, the EP’s recent assertions should be seen as nothing other than a cynical, fundamentally dishonest and dishonorable power grab.

Mission churches move toward autonomy and then autocephaly. That is the natural order of things in the OC. Met. Jonah may have been a bit abrupt in his tone; however, given the claims he was facing, perhaps abruptness was called for.

Respectfully, I didn’t say that you wanted a administratively united Church because of rebbeliousness, I said I thoudht you wanted an autocephalous Church because of our rebellious and independant nature. The two are very different. I too wish to see an administratively united Church. But I don’t believe that this presuposes autocephally, at least not right away.

Additionally, in my post I stated “multinational” becuase they are in fact multi national. Moscow has Ukraine and Byelorus and I believe some other nations within her jurisdiction. Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria all have multiple nations (separate political and geographic entities) within their jurisdiction. As does the OCA. So in this case, although one can say that they are also multi-cultural, they are also multi national.

I would think that the OCA is certainly more multi cultural than the GOA, this is true. But I would argue that the OCa is no more multi cultural than the EP. There really is no question about that what with Greeks, Carpatho Russians, Ukrainians and even Fins and Estonians as well as Indians, Thai, Vietnamese, Korea etc all having ties to the EP.

So let me be clear, administrative unity is something towards which we should all be working and I think that the EP is and should take the lead.

Demetrius (30)

Respectfully, that is exactly my point, we should not attribute motives to others when we are not sure of them. I try, though perhaps I am not always successful, to state that it was my belief that George wanted autocephally for the reason I stated. I did not state it as though it were fact. This is why Met. Jonah is so wrong in what he wrote as are all of the people on this site who attribute motives to the EP (and those who agree with the EP) that are not neccessarily correct. When we are speaking of things which are essentially opinions of philosophies, what makes ona an expert? Everyone is an expert and no one is an expert. I am not sure what works you are speaking of when you refer to Georeg (I assume) as a “…known subject matter expert.” am I missing something? It would not be the first time.

Everyone is getting all bent about the word “submission” but is it not an accurate word? The those in the OCA have you not submitted to be under the Omphorion of Met. Jonah? Have the Antiochians not submitted to Antioch? The Russian Patriarchal parishes, are they not in submission to Moscow? Submission to a primal see is not giving up freedom. Lets not get all outraged when the EP uses the word submission when we all know as Orthodox Christians we have all submitted to one primal see or another already.

George (32)

I don’t recall stating that Met. Jonah was requiring forced homogeneity. Again, submission does not mean we have no freedom. Submission is a voluntary act by which one places himself under the authority of another. As stated above, we have all already submitted ourselves to one jurisdiction or another. This fear over the word submission is a red herring.

Fr. Hans (33)

That is a very good story with a great message. I don’t disagree with it at all. I would submit though that the real problem was not the obedience, but the abuse by the abbot. Surely, the monk did the right thing.

We talked, I told him I would pray, and I did. Here is what came out of it: Even monastic obedience requires freedom. Freedom is what what gave my friend’s obedience its meaning and value. Take away the freedom, and you end up with coercion.

In other words, in demanding obedience, the abbott ceased being a spiritual father and became instead an oppressor, even a tyrant (not too strong a word in this case). His abuse, more specifically his calls for obedience by which he justified his coercion, did not supersede my friend’s freedom in Christ. I saw that my friend could break his vow without incurring the disfavor of Christ.

He did just that, although not by simply walking away from the monastery (which too may have been blessed, albeit more difficult). Rather, his declaration of freedom took place in his heart. Once he recovered his freedom, he found a way out of the monastery and is now serving in a monastery on Mt. Athos (which fulfills a deeper purpose for his life).

George’s point above reminded me of the story. Yes, not even God compels us to believe, let alone obey. Even He respects our freedom. Of course, freedom is in service to a higher law, namely, love of God and neighbor. On the other hand, the defense of freedom, in this case the freedom of my friend, was entirely appropriate despite the charges of rebellion it would have incurred had it been known at the time.