Thanks.
Btw, is someone thinking about Moscow’s latest statements on Chambesy, rather than Antioch’s?
]]>Scott, I agree. The Sunday of Orthodox SCOBA letter makes me uneasy. It also makes me wonder what type of Phanariot Shenanigans are afoot. I wonder sometimes if SCOBA does more to deter American Orthodoxy rather than promote it.
However, there is the real possibility with all that is going on that we may see a unique “Black Swan” moment that allows American Orthodoxy to step forward.
]]>George,
No problem. Something in me is simply suspicious that Constantinople might try to hijack the process to get what Fr. Elpidophoros stated they wanted in his speech. Perhaps you’re right and that is not on the table anymore.
As far as the OCA being the local autocephalous church in North America, I won’t disagree with you. However, regularizing the situation and obtaining universal recognition would be a good thing. Universal recognition presumes other primates would merge their jurisdictions with the OCA so as to reestablish canonical ecclesiology.
Several things concern me about the Chambesy process.
One, it ties the hands of universally recognized autocephalous churches to grant autocephaly to their daughter churches without Constantinople’s ratification. It is nice to be recognized by Constantinople, but that is too much power to give one see. Constantinople fell into h*r*sy during the Council of Florence period, Russia elected its own metropolitan and was, de facto, autocephalous. It reminds me of the language – – I believe it was at Ravenna – – where the definition of the Orthodox Church was stated to be those churches in communion with the EP. That definition is useless unless the EP happens to be a canonical Orthodox church at the time. And even then, it’s simply a truism.
Two, it presumes (apparently because the Phanar would have a hissyfit otherwise) that the Episcopal Assemblies must be chaired by the local representative of the EP (or the highest ranking church in the diptychs if there is no EP church in the area). Both one and two seem to bow to “Greek mythology” [no offense] regarding the Phanar’s prerogatives.
Three, it seems calculated to waste time (as you observed above). All that needs to be done to obtain a universally recognized OCA is for the “old world” patriarchates to bless it. You don’t need any of this Episcopal Assembly (EA) stuff. You could create a provisional synod to work out the question of who would be the diocesan bishops and primate. This provisional synod would also work out how the church’s finances would be integrated (and what the financial relationship would be with other autocephalous churches). I know I’m making it sound too easy by saying this. And some may accuse me of oversimplifying the situation and not taking into account the human realities involved. But the questions of bishop’s turf has to be addressed sooner or later and the longer it’s put off, the longer it will take to accomplish the purported purpose of the EA’s.
I just don’t think there is anything near a critical mass in the GOA or AOCNA for this to actually happen. And you’re right, a bigger SCOBA doesn’t seem to facilitate anything. If I were going to think up a process designed to accomplish nothing while appearing to move toward meeting expectations, this is what I would come up with.
Well, wake me when something interesting happens.
]]>Metropolitan Jonah – Unity in Our Time (38:10)
OCA Primate Met Jonah gives the keynote address at the OCL Road to Unity conference.
[audio src=http://audio.ancientfaith.com/specials/ocl2009/ocl_2009-metjonah.mp3]
]]>p.s. Scott, please understand that the lines in boldface were intended for general consumption, especially those that are unaware of canonical norms, not you personally. Please forgive me if they came out any other way.
]]>Scott, re a united American church “coming under C’pole,” the whole purpose of Chambesy was to create new autocephalous churches wherever existing canonical jurisdictions already exist. So that whole thing was off the table from the get-go, all delusionary speeches delivered at seminaries to the contrary. (Unless of course the Russians take over the EP, then all bets are off the table. Who says God doesn’t have a sense of humor?)
If I may be acerbic here: this is one of the reasons that I was against the Chambesy protocols as far as North America was concerned. Broken record alert: There already exists a canonical, local, autocphalous Orthodox Church in North America. Therefore the Chambesy protocols at best create nothing but a super-sized SCOBA (yawn), or at worst create a mechanism by which true canonical unity is never achieved (villainously twirl the moustache).
What are we to make of the latest contretemps coming out of Romania and Antioch? They could be delaying tactics in order to get more concessions. or they could cause the wheels to come off the unity wagon. Unfortunately, what is obvious to me is that there is very little love between the various patriarchates. Nationalism uber alles. Either way, this is all so incredibly sad. Lord have mercy.
]]>Scott, I just got this from an internal source. I’ll see if I can find out more. Does anybody in the Antiochian jurisdiction know of a printed source?
]]>not to my knowledge. Anybody know?
]]>George,
” . . . and the Antiochian patriarchate has spoken against Chambesy . . . ”
I missed this one. Do you have a link? I don’t doubt your word at all but I’d like to read it. I can see what their motivation would be. I see two possible results for American Orthodoxy coming out of the Chambesy process, assuming it accomplishes anything – – one is the American Church would fall under Constantinople, the other is that it would become autocephalous. Neither prospect is probably particularly appetizing to Damascus.
]]>George, speaking of Sunday of Orthodoxy. Has the GOA/OCA rift been healed in Boston or is the +Methodios temper tantrum still on going?
]]>Noted. Thank you.
]]>