Giving the cry about the non-invitation of the Polish bishops, this statement is inexcusable.

http://www.iglesiaortodoxa.org.mx/informacion/?p=2955

The 16th and 18th of April marked the history of the Orthodox Church in South America, due to the realization of the “First Episcopal Assembly of the Orthodox Churches of South-America”, in the headquarters of the Antiochian Archepiscopal Diocese of São Paulo (Brazil), having as the host H.E. Monsenor Damaskinos. The bishops of the Orthodox Churches (Patriarchate of Constantinople, Patriarchate of Antioch, Patriarchate of Moscow and Patriarchate of Romenia) took part in the assembly,which counted with the presence of 10 hierarchs. The only one missing was the Bishop of the Patriarchate of Serbia, who as participating in the Serbian Holy Synod.

The objective of the Assembly was to implement the results of the 4th Episcopal Conference of Chambésy (Switzerland) in 2009, in which the Orthodox Churches gathered to create all over the world assemblies of bishops for a greater testimony of Orthodoxy and to coordinate group work in different areas (education, catechesis, translations of liturgical texts, relations with public authorities, etc.). In this meeting, it was discussed the adoption of a new version in Spanish of the documents approved in Chambésy, and the situation in each Orthodox Church in South-America was presented. The Assembly established an Executive Committee, whose members are Their Emminences Mosenores: Athenagoras of Mexico (President, Patriarchate of Mexico), Anthony of Mexico (1st Vice-President, Patriarchate of Antioch), Plato of Buenos Aires (2nd Vice-President, Patriarchate of Moscow), Siluan of Buenos Aires (Secretary, Patriarchate of Antioch), and Tarasios of Buenos Aires (Member, Patriarchate of Constantinople). At the end of the deliberations, the Assembly brought up a number of recomendations to be dealt with in a inter-Orthodox level.

With no doubts, the meeting was crowned with the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in the Antiochian Cathedral of São Paulo, which counted with the participation of the orthodox communities of the city and dignataries representing different public, religious and social authorities.

The Assembly greeted in particular the President of Brazil, Luís Ignácio Lula da Silva, for his dilligence and defference shown in expressing through a letter to the Assembly, words for the success of this first meeting and his good wishes for all the communities in South America. Also, the Assembly thanked H.E. Monsenor Damaskinos for his fraternal reception, his hospitality and dilligence in the organization of the event, and also for all the entities of the sirian-lebanese community of São Paulo for the warmth and attention for all the participants of the Assembly.

Michael, I agree with you completely. My concerns regarding the parameters of a meeting are to ensure oversight and transparancy. I can do nothing to ensure that their hearts are in the right place. (Or the laity for that matter.)

Michael,

Well, in several ways. Firstly, hopefully the Holy Spirit protects them. Secondly, their brother bishops beyond the local synod have a responsibility not to let any local church deviate substantially. This was on display recently when a Romanian bishop received communion at a Romanian Catholic event from a Romanian Catholic bishop. The Church of Russia made an inquiry to the Church of Romania if it was now in communion with Rome. The Romanian synod called the bishop in, accepted his apology and promise not to repeat his error.

Thirdly, the laity can influence through letters, withholding stewardship, migration, etc. Even taking advantage of whatever room they have at synods to speak (but not as a matter of right). Lastly, the laity can, over time, move the Church to correct the errors of a Robber Council by rejecting the teaching, persuading or replacing the bishops, etc.

American is nothing new in this regard. I don’t think, “power to the people” tactics are appropriate though since the lust-for-power has a mind of its own and when people get organized, tactically wise and form a plan to arrogate power, the people and plan tend to drift into unpleasant territory due to the human passion for self-will.

Scott, in addition to the normal administrative stuff you mention, how are the bishops held accountable for ‘rightly dividing the word of truth’? In otherwords for upholding the doctrine and practice revealed to the Church as enunciated in the Councils and the canons?

Open mike for the laity–no likely to be productive but something….?

I’m glad you do not want doctrinal matters decided by the laity. What about matters of practice? If all we’re talking about is the demand for financial transparency, accountability regarding clergy abuse, pushing for more austerity among hierarchs etc., then that’s peachy keen.

However, I do not think, as Fr. Oleska seems to, that it’s a good idea for the laity to have an open mike at synods. There are tactics which could be used to really screw things up. Revolution vs. uprising, it just depends on where you stand.

I have no desire to see any matters of doctrine subject to majority rule.

What we need to develop is a better functioning understanding AND deployment of a hierarchical principal of responsiveness and accountablity than we have now. Power and authority without a clear, enforceable method of accountablity that actually works is an on-going temptation to sin that few can resist. It is an invitation to wolfhood. We need to rectify the current situation in which spiritual discipline or lack thereof is a function of money and friendship rather than of genuine pastoral need. (The bishops cronies get the goodies and the exemptions while the rest of us have to ‘toe the line’).

If the bishops are unwilling and unable to adhere to any normative means of accountablity(which they clearly are not), what do we do?

If bishops abandon the faith in the face of poltical demands by the God-haters on marriage, abortion, etc. How do we “hold their feet to the fire” as Fr. Hans suggests, especially when so many of us have already abadoned the faith on these matters anyway.

Of the two models that have been voiced in the OCA (Fr. Michael’s and Met. Jonah’s) I prefer Met. Jonah’s. Nevertheless, Fr. Michael’s statement needs to be openingly discussed.

BTW of the 65 canonical bishops in North America, I personally know three. Two of those I have no problem with at all, but their voices seem to be drowned out in their own synods while attaining to a high level of respect amongst the faithful. They are both pastoral bishops with genuine monastic foundations, not CEO’s or pope-lites.

Michael,

The autocracy I was speaking about was political autocracy, not ecclesiastical autocracy. There was a time when bishops were elected. I have nothing against reviving that so long as they are elected from monastics. There is a laity approval mechanism in the Church, poorly defined, but nonetheless there. That is reception. However, even in reception the bishops have the last word. It is up to the people to move the bishops to change erroneous proclamations.

Christ Himself instituted the hierarchy in the Church. We should not make the presumption present throughout your comment and George’s that the bishops are wolves and the sheep need to protect themselves. Sometimes this is true. Sometimes the hierarchy needs protection from the laity. The sheep are just as capable (maybe moreso) of being wolves as the hierarchs.

For instance, you recall the survey that was done of Orthodox laity where their attitudes were divided up into four or five categories of varying stringency (albiet totally subjectively self-assessed)? Later in the article describing the attitudes of the laity it became clear that a considerable majority were open and partial to quite a few heterodox ideas that they would introduce into the Church (if they had the power to do so). It’s not that I trust the bishops (at least in local synods). I don’t. It’s that the laity are less trustworthy.

As to Fr. Oleska, I’m suspicious of his attitude toward Orthodoxy anyway. I recall reading an article by him in the Antiochian magazine where he concluded something like, “Western Christians tend to conquer for their faith and Eastern Christians tend to suffer and be martyred for theirs”. That is utterly simplistic. But it is understandible if you know that he is sympathetic to the OPF and signed their neo-Stalinist statement against the Iraq War (as well as another such statement against the possibility of a war with Iran, under the Bush presidency). If you have pacifistic left wing tendencies, saying that our soldiers are murderers and the war was a terrorist action makes perfect sense. It also makes sense that you would want to water down the power of the hierarchy. That’s what such people seek to do.

It is the lack of openness, the lack of communication, the lack of anything approaching a solution that is the problem.

The one mind being manifested seems to be the mind of the status-quo rather than the mind of Christ.

You realize, of course, that the vast majority of the laity prefers the defacto Protestantism we have now rather than what history and Tradition shows the Church to be. That way, we aren’t ever asked to be obedient, not really. As long as they are wealthy, disconnected CEO’s nothing is required of us, even when they are right. The price for us having real shepards is much higher than we often imagine.

There has to be a living connection between leaders and their people. Af Fr. Gregory pointed out, for two long it has been a worldly connection-ethnicity. That is clearly no longer viable. We need to work on allowing the connection to be our common love and committment to the Creed, the Holy Mysteries and the kneotic life. We cannot demand or expect that our shepards do what we refuse to do. If we put ourselves in that position, clearly we are not their sheep. We belong to a different flock.

We have to work to allow the connection to be Jesus Christ.

Michael, I completely agree with you. The “shepherds” must give their lives for the “sheep.” Being holed up in the Ritz-Carlton eating a 5-course meal attended by the glitterati is not the mark of a true shepherd.

The question with which I am faced when I consider the hierarchy of the Church is this: If it is absolute, why is the laity even needed? Just because a shepherd needs sheep?

To me that posits an ontological difference between the shepherd and the sheep that does not exist when we are all sinful human beings.

If the bishop stands in the place of Christ, liturgically and pastorally, does that not require a deep and abiding connetion of love that demands they consider our spiritual needs before all else?

If the shepherd leaves the sheep and does not care for them and feed them and take care of them, do they not bleat? Would not a good and faithful shepherd attend to their bleating to determine if the bleating indicated the presence of a wolf or some other danger?

Should not a good shepherd see further than the sheep to help the flock avoid danger rather than leading them into it?

If the shepherds are holed up in a cabin alone while a storm rages outside don’t they cease to be good shepherds?

Is there no other recourse than to wait for the owner of the flock alone to hold the shepherds accountable?

We are after all reason endowed sheep, are we not?

I am not comfortable with the populist note that Fr. Michael seems to sound, however, it is worth considering that he is immersed in a traditional culture that has proven to be a fruitful ground for the faith. The culture recogizes the ruling authority of the elders, does not dispute it except in the most egregious of circumstances. At the same time, the culture recognizes that the integrity, even the life of the community is dependent upon each member of the community being aware and responsible for that life and its integrity.

Hierarchy does not necessarily require autocracy, only obedience. Obedience means to hear the word. If the shepherds are deaf to the sheep how can they speak the proper word? Obedience in the Church is focused on one’s unity with and communion with Christ, not on the power of position. I am reminded of a scene in the movie Ostrov in which the main character, a lowly, seemingly crazy lay monk is sitting with the Abbot of the monastery, a hieromonk. The crazy one asks the Abbot if it is not strange that he, the crazy one, has been entrusted with the leadership of the monastery?

I would argue that the concept of autocracy is one mistakenly borrowed from worldly rulers and is foreign to the spirit of the Church, just as democracy and congregationalism are foreign. All three concepts introduce elements of rigidity and an attitude of “us against them” mentality that effectively denies the incarnational reality of the Church.

There are levels of concilarity which can and should be interrelated in a healthy community. That in no way denies the authority of the bishops but insures their authority is founded upon love rather than power, service rather than being served, connectedness rather than separation.

What we have now has not worked, is not working and will not magically work in the future.

In this light, Met. Jonah’s proposal of moving the participation of the laity downstream to the diocesan level makes a lot of sense to me. That still requires that the shepherds actually listen to and attend to their sheep while not elevating the sheep to the status of uber-shepherd and replacing Christ Himself.

“Some observers have noted that there is very little in the canonical tradition of the Church to justify the participation of laity or even parish clergy in the administrative governance of the Church.”

So far, so good.

“I would note however, that the Church historically and even canonically, recognized a role for the Emperor, precisely in the administrative life of the Church and even accorded him certain liturgical prerogatives.”

True, but not related to the above.

“Part of the process of adaptation to the new circumstances of life without an empire, without an emperor requires the Church to find another benefactor, a replacement for the role fulfilled by the Imperial government in its affairs.”

Why is that? What “requires” this? Who else has the power and unified will of an emperor?

“And who serves that function in a democracy? If in an autocracy
an autocrat did, then in a democracy, the demos must. The place of the Emperor has been taken by O Laos tou Theou, the People of God.”

This is not true. No one serves the function of emperor in democracies such as we have in the US and Europe. What has happened, rather, is that the idea of autocracy has passed into disfavor. The people do not want to be the emperor. They do not want empire at all. We, in this country, wished to have limited government. Not a system whereby the will of the people at any given moment was tantamount to the imperial will.

“But if we are committed to conciliarity, the Rules will need to be adjusted first to insist, not just permit, that everyone be given an opportunity to contribute to the discussion. This requires the Chair to call upon all those who have not spoken to speak before any vote has been taken.”

Not exactly. If we are committed to conciliarity, then this requires that we leave the workings of councils to bishops. That is what conciliarity means and what the role and power of a bishop mean. If they wish to hear from the priesthood or the laity, that’s fine. If and when they’ve heard enough, that’s fine too.

Hopefully, Met. Jonah will think very carefully before endorsing this view of the “new Emperor”. You could, however, make a strong case for the idea that autocratic rule is indispensible to Orthodoxy. It would sound much more solid than the idea of the people as Emperor. The emperor was a powerful head of state. Not just any state, but the Roman Empire. His function in the system of Orthodox conciliarity was based upon that power and status. No such thing exists in Orthodox countries anymore. The closest thing might be Putin in Russia.

I don’t wish to be too hard on Fr. Oleska, but his speech/talk/letter reminds me of some of the stuff I heard as a religion minor in a liberal arts university in the Upper South. “God as Parent – Lover – Friend, “God as President of the faithful”, etc. This is the greatest danger of organizations like OCL. They may serve a good purpose by shining sunlight on things intentionally obscured. However, power to the people is a dangerous concept. The people are fickle, thoughtless, often badly informed and slaves to their passions. This is true to some extent of the episcopacy as well. But at least they have been formally trained in theology, morality and ecclesiology. Besides, governance of the church has been entrusted to them, in conciliarity.

Any idea where I can find the essay?