What he’s proposed is ‘archy’ not ‘an-archy’. If we’re going to survive it can’t be ‘xeno-archy’.

George,

Regarding “ROCOR-MP-OCA-AOCNA/GOA”, that’s my experience although I’ve never been to a MP patriarchal parish or to Russia so I can only judge that from what I’ve heard.

It’s hard to classify AOCNA though. The Antiochian parish in my area is nearly as conservative as the OCA one, the only real difference being pews. I’ve heard of Antiochian parishes with no pews. On the other hand, Met. Phillip allows altar girls, which the Greeks forbid.

Actually, you could fill out the above continuum to put the ROCOR Old Believer parishes to the conservative side of ROCOR, Serbian at about the same as ROCOR, etc. But I agree that that’s the general spectrum.

Although I favor the more traditional practices and would encourage them, I don’t believe as some do that it’s something to get too bent out of shape over. I was more or less ok with the praxis in my Greek parish. Basically, unless there’s a real moral or aesthetic problem, you can manage to maintain a conservative Orthodox lifestyle in a modern parish. You just have to focus on your own practice and not that of others.

I mean, the only ones who actually have the authority to pass judgment on the acceptability of a diocese’s or jurisdiction’s practices are the bishops of the wider church. MP and ROCOR are in communion with the Greeks and Antiochians. I know it may sound strange to some to evaluate the Greeks and Antiochians in terms of the Russians but it makes sense to me to do that because I believe that the burden of proof is on whomever makes the changes from centuries past.

Isa, wouldn’t that be audacious?

You know, Dean, the contrast between the Ligonier Statement and the Chambesy ones can be boiled down to one question: Where is Christ in all this? In Ligonier His presence suffuses it completely.

Allow me to add another vote for Anarchy. A little anarchy would truly be the work of the Holy Spirit. I would love to see those 79th street Masters of the Universe sweat big time. Which overpaid adminstrator’s head would explode first?

In the meantime there is something inherently wrong with 50+ monks committed to the ascetic life of Orthodoxy meeting at the Helmsley Hotel. I mean the rooms at Ligonier if I remember do not have televisions, pay per view, or room service. Those bishops had no distractions in Ligonier. All they could do was pray, eat and talk to each other. That alone almost brought forth an American Church.

I can’t see that happening at the Helmsley Hotel. It looks more and more like a corporate retreat.

Isa,

You are really an anarchist at heart aren’t you?

LOL

me too!

Best Regards
dean

I’m hoping the EA rapidly gets out of control and pulls a Ligonier. Now that we have already seen how it is done.

Harry, I find myself agreeing with you completely. I remain unconvinced that Ligonier wasn’t important in the grand scheme of things. I remember Ligonier –the excitement was palpable. There is no way that it can be subsumed as merely a project of SCOBA. It may have been started by SCOBA but it was way more than that. You’re right, it’s the gold standard. If the EA approaches just 1/4 of the enthusiasm generated there, it will be considered a rip-roaring success.

Scott, of course ROCOC is more conservative than MP but I’d say not by much. In your opinion, what do you think the continuum of American Orthodoxy looks like? Here’s my take: ROCOR-MP-OCA-AOCNA/GOA.

If the right to appeal to the Synod or to a Lesser Synod responsible for ethnic ‘disputes’ is given to each parish, then having a bishop charged with representing and defending a traditional right would be powerful. The ‘ethnic’ bishops would need to be diocesan bishops with a vote on the Synod rather than suffragens not normally allowed to vote. To address this, one would simply need to give the ‘ethnic’ bishops a micro-diocese. I have often thought a resident bishop in a monastery, seminary or retreat center would fit this bill – they would be the true diocesan bishop of that place and have a full, diocesan vote on the Synod. For instance, the Antiochian ‘ethnic’ bishop could sit at Antiochian Village; the Russian ‘ethnic’ bishop could sit at Jordanville; the Carpatho-Rusyn ‘ethnic’ bishop could sit at Christ the Saviour Seminary; and the Greek bishop could sit at either HCHC or in Astoria or at St. Anthony’s Monastery in AZ; etc. These would be balanced out by the primary, geographically based bishops responsible for parish life across all ethnicities and local traditions. (‘Ethnic’ is really just shorthand for local tradition[s] and language).

George,

Well, again, I wasn’t coming at it from the judgmental point of view just from the practical irreconcilable-differences-before-the-marriage point of view. I do agree with your moral appraisal of the situation but regardless of how one feels morally the potential for train wrecks is nonetheless there.

As to the MP and ROCOR, actually I kind of see ROCOR as being more conservative than Moscow in a way. Also, according to the terms of their reconcilliation, I’m pretty sure Moscow has a very minimal role regarding ROCOR’s internal workings. Also, the Act of Canonical Communion indirectly states (article 6) that ROCOR cannot be directed, against the will of its synod, to join with any other jurisdiction.

Isa,

Also recall Pat. Bartholomew’s encyclical for Sunday of Orthodoxy in which he took anyone criticizing his ecumenical endeavors to task. I suppose it is good news since no one kicks a dead dog.

The only wild card is that the Ephraimite monasteries may cause the secular parishes to become more traditional. Like I said, time will tell.

It would seem from one of the less commented on comments of the Phanar’s mouthpiece’s speech at Holy Cross, that this blessing/threat (depending on your POV) is real.

Scott, just so you know, I’m in complete agreement with you regarding the scandalous Orthopraxes that are on display here in North America. That’s kind of why I foresee an eventual fizzling of the EA. At the very least, there’s no way that ROCOR is going to go along with the Byzantine-flavored Episcopalianism of the GOA. And it seems that the OCA is well on its way to recovering a more traditional praxis. And I really can’t see +Kirill allowing any erosion taking place within the MP-parishes and ROCOR. That means that there’d be no way a ROCOR/MP/OCA priest will be forced by some GOA bishop to commune some trophy wife who’s never confessed.

Time will tell if the AOCNA will but they’re closer to it than the GOA. The only wild card is that the Ephraimite monasteries may cause the secular parishes to become more traditional. Like I said, time will tell.

In 1990 I think it was SUNY who conducted a survey of religion and society in which they asked people what they were. I remember for instance that the United Church of Christ showed up with more members than it claimed. The thinking was because the survey just asked people what they saw themselves as, and not who paid their dues etc, the number was higher. It came up with a 2% Orthodox number, which at the time would be 5,000,000. A followup in 2000 found 1%, or 2,500,000.

Greg,

I used the admittedly inflated numbers that have been bandied about over the last couple of decades. That’s why I wrote, “at the most”. What you often hear is 2 million Greek Orthodox, 1 million OCA, 750,000 Antiochians and 250,000 ROCOR, et al. I guestimated from this about 5 million. That’s about the highest estimate I’ve heard. The reason I used that was to emphasize that even using the wildest possible numbers, we constitute a tiny fraction of the USA’s population. I’m certainly willing to admit that the numbers I used probably exceed the number of currently living persons ever to set foot in an Orthodox Church in the USA.