Isa, excellent points all, as usual. However, I think we are coming close to a point that we can dispense with what the Old World thinks. Who cares? We’ve never been under any foreign patriarchates “protection” since the 1917. I mean, come on, has Bulgarian/Serbia/Greece/C’pole/Antioch/etc. every paid for the erection of one building in North America? Have they subsidized the salary of so much as one cantor? Did they even donate one solitary pew anywhere? “Protection” means something, otherwise it’s an word devoid of all meaning.

I know I’ve harped on this incessantly, but the idea that the American church is “immature” leads me to ask: OK, so if we were under your “protection” then it’s you’re fault things are so bass-akwards here.

I’m taking the position that Met. Jonah, Archb. Demetrios and Pat. Kyrill are taking the strategy that one can be a little pregnant just for so long. Since the “registry of canonical bishops” contains the OCA, the OCA (and its autocephaly) cannot come under the perview of the “committee to determine the canonical status of local communities in the region that have no reference to the Most Holy Autocephalous Churches.” Does the OCA sit on the “committee to plan for the organization of the Orthodox of the region on a canonical basis?” Notice that the EA names itself successor to SCOBA, but did I miss any reference to the executive committee of the EA? Met. Jonah has not given up his claims to autocephaly: how is the Phanar going to explain that away? They are going to have to either go into denial and cut off communion, or face reality as they were forced to in Russia.

Dean, exactly.

* Meeting with them officially – just occurred in NYC
* Serving with representatives of the OCA – occurred last week in Moscow by the EP himself (with Fr. Zaccheus)
* Being in a liturgy which commemorates the primate of the OCA – also happened last week in Moscow, with the EP present.

To be honest, I’m not sure what else is left.

What do you all think? Has the OCA been recognized in all but name?

Honestly wondering if that wasn’t one of the results of last week.

Best Regards
dean

George: The Russian bishop being the 2nd Vice Chair in the NA/CA EA is not really the result of an “advancement.” It’s following the diptychs in order: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow, etc. Since there are no bishops of Alexandria or Jerusalem locally, Antioch’s representative ends up 2nd and Moscow’s ends up 3rd (rather than 3rd and 5th, respectively). This is the standard order for the diptychs.

Much to learn. Thanks.

LOL. That step was taken when the OCA took her place on SCOBA.

I notice that ROCOR has the statement on its website, where the ROCOR bishopsa are labeled as “Russian Orthodox Church,” and Met. Jonah and the Holy Synod are listed seperately “Orthodox Church in America.”

Wesley, not a step at all. For example, depending on the year, Antiochian seminarians would go to St. Vladimir’s. People routinely had ‘Sunday of Orthodoxy’ vespers with all the local Orthodox parishes, communion here or there among the parishioners has gone on for years and years.

It’s been a fact on the ground for a long time.

Andrew, you raise a blizzard of good questions. Some I have attempted to answer in a paper published on this website (“Canonicity and Locality”). The short answer is that there are too many inherent contradictions in the Chambesy process, enough that it allowed everybody to see a “win” for their side (so to speak). When all is said and done however, the ROC “won” more in that it accomplished several things. Here they are in no particular order:

1. the non-recognition of Estonia
2. the advancement of the ROC up the dyptichs (to 3rd place), which means an automatic place on all presidiums in all the EAs
3. the ability two have two votes in the North American EA (ROCOR/MP, the OCA’s vote is largely sympathetic to the ROC)
4. the recognition of the OCA as a canonical church (and autocephalous? Probably)

There are no doubt others. When all is said and done however, of all the patriarchates, only the ROC is able to subordinate the protocols of Chambesy to its own satisfaction. One could even say, override them. As an exaple, I cite the recent visit of +Hilarion to Alexandria, when he told the Pope that the ROC will set up its own churches on that continent. (As a concession, he said that Russia would pay for the education of natives in its seminaries. What’s a poor pope like going to do? say no?)

I can only quickly say that I have many of the same questions, and some others. For instance, if the Ukrainians and Carpatho-Russians have a vote each, why is that not with the PoM and the Church CzLS (Prague) respectively?

Btw, I see that EP Bartholomew in Russia announced that he is calling the great council. Maybe he wants to be more hands on with the seating arrangements.

# 1) At first I was skeptical about the the accuracy of the claims that Patriarch Bartholomew asked/told Archbishop Demetrios not to invite Metropolitan Jonah and the other OCA bishops to the Episcopal Assembly, but now I have seen enough information in the media to feel relatively comfortable believing that this is true, but I would like “proof”.

Can anyone cite evidence to substantiate this?

# 2) My understanding is that nobody was questioning the canonical status of the OCA bishops, as evidenced by the fact that they have pretty much always been in Eucharistic communion with all the other Churches & the primate of the OCA has always been a member of SCOBA, but, instead, it was the canonicity of their autocephaly that was being called into question by some. I thought that the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in refusing to recognize the OCA as an autocephalous Church, viewed it as part of the Patriarchate of Moscow similar to ROCOR.

Am I wrong about this?

# 3) If I am correct about # 2 (there was no question regarding the canonicity of the OCA bishops only the autocephaly) & if # 1 is true (Patriarch Bartholomew did indeed ask/tell Archbishop Demetrios to intentionally not invited the OCA bishops to the Episcopal Assembly) then what possible logic (I’m serious) could be behind this move given that all canonical bishops of the region were supposed to be invited?

# 4) I have heard that Metropolitan Jonah does not have a seat on the Executive Committee of the Episcopal Assembly.

Is this true?

# 5) The documents from the 4th Chambesy conference (posted on the SCOBA website) are not very clear (one could even say contradictory) regarding who sits on the Executive Committee, for instance:

The “Decision” document states in Section 2b):

“These Assemblies will have an Executive Committee composed of the first hierarchs of the different jurisdictions that exist on the region.”

The key word here being “jurisdiction”, which would mean that the Greek, Antiochian, Ukrainian, Carpatho-Russian, Albanian, Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian, ROCOR, Moscow Patriarchate & OCA would each have their respective primates sitting on the Executive Committee, in a similar fashion to SCOBA.

However, the “Rules of Operation” document states in Article 3:

“The Episcopal Assembly will have an Executive Committee composed of the Primatial Bishops of each of the canonical Churches in the Region.”

The key phrase here being “canonical Churches”, which raises a number of questions…

Does Metropolitan Hilarion of the ROCOR “jurisdiction” have a seat on the Executive Committee or is ROCOR considered part of the “canonical Church” of Moscow, & if so does Archbishop Justinian hold the seat on the Executive Committee?

Do the each of primates of the various “jurisdictions” under the Patriarchate of Constantinople have seats on the Executive Committee (ex: Metropolitan Nicholas of the Carpatho-Russian diocese, Bishop Ilia of the Albanian diocese, etc.) or do all these “jurisdictions” fall under the “canonical Church” of Constantinople meaning that only Archbishop Demetrios would hold the seat on the Executive Committee?

I recall that Fr. Mark Arey, in an Ancient Faith Radio special entitled “Unraveling Chambesy” with Kevin Allen of The Illumined Heart podcast, stated that each “canonical Church” would have only one vote in the Episcopal Assembly. He went on to explain that all the “jurisdictions” of the Ecumenical Patriarchate would only have one collective vote, and they would have to reach an internal consensus before casting their vote. Is this still the case?

If all “jurisdictions” fall under their respective “canonical Church” with only one primate sitting on the Executive Committee then I suppose I can see the logic behind not granting Metropolitan Jonah a seat given that the OCA is not universally recognized as being autocephalous.

However, this begs the question of how the OCA bishops will cast their votes, I would assume with the Patriarchate of Moscow, which opens up another can or worms because it forces the Patriarchate of Moscow to deny the autocephaly they granted to the OCA. I suppose either Moscow or Constantinople has to compromise on the autocephaly of OCA issue.

If the primate of every “jurisdiction” (except the OCA) holds a seat on the Executive Committee then this is the epitome of hypocrisy and must be rejected because granting Metropolitan Jonah a seat does not equate with the recognition of the OCA’s autocephaly any more than granting Metropolitan Nicholas of the Carpatho-Russian diocese a seat acknowledges that that “jurisdiction” is an autocephalous Church. Logic dictates that it cannot work both ways.

Does anyone know how the seats on the Executive Committee & the voting are determined because the official documents dealing with this matter are clear as mud?

Just curious, can anyone identify the bishops standing around the Holy Table. I definately see +Jonah there. Who are the others? Are they the primates of SCOBA?

Yes, SCOBA and the Federation do indeed pre-date the Chambesy meetings.

The specific use of the phrase “Episcopal Assembly” which appears repeatedly in the Statement on the Church in North America was a deliberate reference to earlier documents coming out of Chambesy discussions on the “diaspora.” (More on this here.)

If you get a chance to read Fr. Nicholas Apostola’s paper (can’t recall the name at the moment) that appeared in the SVTQ around that time, there’s a lot of detail on the Ligonier drafters’ (he was one of them) attempt to conform themselves to what was coming from Chambesy, most especially the Nov. 10-17, 1990, documents. This is actually all detailed in the “A New Era Begins” publication distributed by various folks.

Isa, good point, very good point, one that I myself often forget.