What’s rich about this is that the Church of Greece was likewise constrained by its own tomos of autocephaly from Constantinople from setting up churches outside of its own territory. This gets even more absurd: Greece had no political sovereignty in North America. The illogic further collapses upon itself because the EP granted a “tomos” directing all its parishes to subject themselves to the Church of Greece, in open contradiction to its own directives to Greece!

One gets the definate idea that for too long, too many of the old world patriarchates make things up as they go alone. How credible is that?

geo

geo

anyway, as for the Holy Synod, maybe it can be structured thusly: two houses, an Episcopal Assembly (roughly akin to the Senate), and the Clergy-Laity Congress. Notice I borrowed two concepts: one from Chambesy and one from the GOA. The Episcopal Assembly could be presided over by the Metropolitan of All-America and Canada and the Clergy-Laity Congress by an elected layman.

Both would meet separately maybe twice a year and together once every 4 yrs (for example). Of course, when they meet together, then the Metropolitan would be the president. Just ideas.

But I really think that we should try as much as possible to stay away from the idea of auxiliary bishops for immigrant groups UNLESS said auxiliary bishop was a suffragan of an ordinary AND whose pastoral concern extends ONLY to immigrants within the territorial diocese. If so, then protopresbyters would not be necessary.

My main concern (besides rigid diocesan boundaries) is to minimize as much as possible the idea that ethnic groups don’t really participate in the life of a diocese. Under this system, they would (admittedly) be a special group within a diocese but they would still be a part of the diocese. I see this for example in the Roman Catholic Church which has special monsigneurs and departments catering to the needs of Hispanic and Vietnamese immigrants. Eventually they get assimilated. At no time do they feel alienated because the bishop happens to be Polish or Irish or whatever.

I think having a overarching “neutral” primate, ethnic diocese metropolitans, and ordinary suffragan bishops would meet the needs. Of course what are those needs might differ.

I think each of the ethnic wants/needs assurances that it is not going to be swallowed up. A legitimate concern.

They don’t want all the ties to the Mother Country/Church to be cut. Again, legitimate:personally I’m not for putting grandma in storage in the old folks home and forget her.

So even beyond the immigrant issues (which are in the near future going to be greater, not lesser), for the long term there are “ethnic” issues that have to be put in perspective. We don’t all have to be the same. Again, my example of the Vatican’s churches: their ethnicities came through, although in the same langauge. Nothing wrong with that.

As I’ve fleshed it out more elsewhere, I also propose something like the vicar system you suggest, but more on the order of a parish being the the point man (or priest) for the local diocesan bishop: something almost resembling metochia in each diocese for the various ethnic metropolitans. Thinks like dues etc. would be through the local Metropolitan, whose budgets etc. on the various ethnicities not his own would be coordinated/shared with his brother Metropolitans. The metropolitans will therefore be operating on both an ethnic and the geographical level. With a neutral primate and purely/primarily geographical suffragans bishops, the metropolitans can operate in the geographical scheme while giving each ethnic group the breathing room it needs without promoting ethnarchies.

Say, for instance, that a Greek parish in Arizona has a complant that the Russian Metropolitan of SF is suppressing Independence Day celebrations on Annunciation. They could bring their concerns to the Greek vicor for the Metropolia of SF (say the protopriest at Greek Holy Trinity in SF), who would advise the Metropolitan on them, and if need be bring the Greek Metropolitan of New Orleans to consult with the Metropolitan of SF, and if need be, bring it before the whole Holy Synod for resolution. The Greek Metropolitan (NO) could advise the Russian Metropolitan (SF) on what is or isn’t appropriate for Greeks to do that day.

Btw, I think Alaska should have a metropolitan for Amerindians.

Not all bishopricks need be or should be divided along ethnic lines. Hence every metropolia will end up with a mix. But having someone designated to defend X usage makes sure it will be done, and not pull an archbishop Ireland (or Alexander). And for the Metropolitan, the geographical basis will be primary, e.g.: HH X, Metropolitan of SF and all the West, defender of the usage of Moscow/Russian usage, whatever. The primate should be barred from having such a responsiblity.

We would also have to think if Canada and Mexico are destined for autocephaly, and plan accordingly. A French and Spanish Metropolitan should be set up too.

My solution has been to create ethnic micro-dioceses that would be geographic but represent a very small territory. So, for instance, there could be a bishop of Jordanville who would be the ethnic Russian hierarch on the Synod or a bishop of Florence, AZ for the Greeks, or South Canaan, PA for the ‘Metropolia’ traditions, etc. These ethnic and at the same time geographic, diocesan hierarchs would also hold a vicar-general position within the local church dealing with questions or concerns of the ethnic flock of another diocese. This vicar-general position would likely be in assistance to the Primate and be part of the unifying role that hierarch plays on the Synod, i.e., conflict resolution of ethnic kinds.

What depresses me is that we’ve been here anywhwere from 3 to eight generations, and we still have to play this game. My ideal would be perfectly territorial bishops with perhaps an “ethnic advisor” or “vicar-general for recent immigrants.” I.e. the Metropolitan of Chicago (a real metropolitan btw, with suffragan bishops), could have a protopresbyter leading a vicariate for recent Serbian immigrants, the Bishop of Detroit, a vicar-general for recent Romanian immigrants, etc. But his writ would extend only to Romanian immigrants within the dioese of Detroit. Those Romanians who may be in NYC would be under a vicar-general that reports to the archbishop of NYC.

In my opinion this does at least three things:

1. it cares for the pastoral needs of recent immigrants,
2. it integrates them into the life of the territorial diocese, and
3. it maintains the sovereignty of the bishop in that it eliminates the need for auxiliary bishops. (The vicar-general is a protosbyter who of course needs to be of the ethnicity in question and fluent in their language.)

How would this work out? When the ordinary bishop of the diocese visits an immigrant mission/parish, he could take the vicar with him. This woul put a face on the bishop and integrate him into the life of the immigrant parish. As it is now, we have a Romanian/Serb/Bulgarian/etc patriarchal church which spans the continent. How many times a year does such a parish located in (say) Arizona or Northern California receive an episcopal visit from their ethnic ordinary?

This of course exposes a dirty secret: most of these parishes don’t really care about receiving spiritual guidance from their ordinaries; their focus is on mainting their Bulgarian/Greek/Albanian/etc. heritage.

Anyway, what do you think?

Althought the ethnic Orthodox MAY have been Christian for generations (communism makes that less certain: my Romanian ex-wife for instance was atheist for awhile until after the fall of Communism), they do have special needs that need attending to. Many communities for instance are taking in a lot of immigrants. As I have posted on OC.net, I think bishops with a Metropolitan/Archbishop see for each ethnic group (eg. Detroit for the Romanians, Brooklyn for the Arabs, New Orleans for the Greeks, SF for the Russians, Pittsburgh for the Carpathorussians, Chicago for the Serbs, Montreal for the French, Mexico City for the Spanish, etc Wichita? for WRO?), designated as “Protector/Defendor of X usage” (as with ROCOR’s bishop who oversees their Old Rite Churches), “regular” bishops as sufragans in the area, and a neutral primate in Washington or New York might, and strategically placed metochia, best fit the situation in North America. Ideally our situation should come to resemble that of the Vatican in this country before Vatican II: you can go into their churches, and although it is the same mass, you can tell which is Italian, Spanish, Mexican, Irish, German etc. Ethnicity doesn’t have to be done away with, just put in perspective.

The Pope of Rome taking effective control of Italy wasn’t a problem for canon 28, as Nicea I c. 6 gave him as much right. A bigger issue was the complete subjegation of the North African church, which nonetheless happened because although emphasizing councels of maximally independent bishops, North Africa outside of Alexandria’s jurisdiction had always looked (but not without controversy) “over the sea” as a court of appeal (hence the famous “Rome has spoken” misquote). As fairly good paper on that situation is
http://people.vanderbilt.edu/~james.p.burns/chroma/clergy/Tilleyorders.html
“The Structure of the Episcopate and the Eclipse of Christianity in North Africa” by Maureen A. Tilley

Btw, I see I mistyped: my degree is PhD A[ll] B[ut] D[issertation]

Anyway, it became a fait accompli as far as the three contiguous dioceses were concerned The Pope couldn’t rightly argue as he had earlier seized the right to consecrate the bishops of the 10 suburbicarian dioceses within the (civil) prefecture of the city of Rome.

I like however your take on salvaging the concept of ethnic dioceses in light of the “barbarian bishops” of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace. Of course, I could say that these barbarians were not long-term Christians and probably needed specific missionary bishops of their race. All of the ethnic Orthodox in America however have been Christians for generations.

What do you think?

Keep up the good work.

I like the ethnic dioceses, as a solution to a somewhat unique situation in America. They actually, I would argue, are canonical: they are the descendants of the “barbarian” bishops that canon 28 is REALLY talking about, i.e. attached to Christians who don’t quite fit in the metropolitan system. So the ethnic dioceses actually uphold the canons, especially canon 28, whereas the EP’s Ultramontanism stand them on their head.

Note, I did not say that Orthodox immigrants were not canonically Orthodox, only the creation of parallel and/or schismatic parishes, then dioceses. If I may press the point further: that is what I believe Fr Touma Bitar meant when he recently wrote that the OCA is the only “canonical jurisdiction” in North America. I believe he meant that it is the only one that is set up according to canonical principles.

It is 1) territorial, that is to say its borders are contiguous with the polity, 2) its bishops are autonomous, and 3)it’s synod of bishops is under no authority but that of Christ (as are all autocephalous churches).

My only caveat is that within the OCA there exist certain ethnic exarchates (Romanian, Albanian, Bulgarian) which are not strictly territorial. In this, they come very close to violating the canonical norm, which was upheld by Constantinople in 1872. In other words, ethnicity over polity. Of course, none of the OCA’s critics want to press this as it exposes for all to see their own sin which is even more egregious.

http://books.google.com/books?id=5zsTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA436&dq=Churches+Greek+Church+1897&lr=#

“Of these churches, 4 are represented in the United States by regular church organizations. These are the Russian Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox, the Servian Orthodox and the Syrian Orthodox. Only I of these has a definite and inclusive ecclesiastical organization, and that is the Russian Orthodox Church. The Greek Orthodox churches are looking forward to such an organization, but it is not as yet completed. The Servian and Syrian Orthodox churches are under the general supervision of the Russian Orthodox Church, although reported separatedly.”

On the Greeks it notes “application has been made by the communities to the ecclesiastical authorities of their own sections, and priests have been sent to this country, sometimes by the Holy Synod of Greece and sometimes by the Patriarchate of Constantinople…As in the case of the early Russian churches [?], there had been no central organization, each priest holding his ecclesiastical relation with the synod or patriarchate which sent him to this country. Arrangements are being perfected for a general organization of the Greek speaking communities representing both the Holy Synod of Greece and the Patriarchate of Constantinople…In doctrine the Greek churhces are in entire accord with other Eastern Orthodox Churches. Their polity and worship, however while in principle the same, vary somewhat in form to meet the peculiar needs. With a more complete organization these divergencies will either disappear or be defintely established…The entire organization of the Greek churches is practically on a home missionary basis.” It also records that in 1890 the Greeks had 1 organization with 100 communicants.

For the Syrians it states “The churches of this body represent the immigration into the Unites States of communities from Syria connected with the Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch or Jerusalem. They all have priests of their own, but as a body they are under the general supervision of a coadjutor bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church. In doctrine and polity they are in harmony with the Russian Orthodox Church….”

As for the “Servians” [sic] they “are under the general supervision of the archbishop of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States, but have a special administrator an archimandrite of that church. In doctrine and polity they are in harmony with the Russian Orthodox Church…”

The work was on voluntary self reports from the congregations themselves for the end of 1906, two years before even the 1908 Greek Tomos.

There is an Episcopal report of 1912 which says basically the same thing, adding the Albanians to the Russians jurisdiction and commenting on the refusal of the Greeks to admit the authority of the Russian bishop, and deploring the chaos that reigned in the Greek parishes as a result.
http://www.archive.org/stream/peopleofeasterno00epis/peopleofeasterno00epis_djvu.txt