I just realized I made a mistake. It was the Second Continental Congress which declared independence and thence, nationhood.

I guess this means that the current EA just concluded is canonical since it was attended by canonical bishops. If so however, then all previous episcopals assemblies were canonical as well, this includes Ligonier.

Yes. The authority lies in the fact canonical bishops comprised the assembly. The authority was not conferred by a “Mother Church” even though the mother churches were instrumental in calling it.

This, as you say, makes Ligonier a legitimate synod. It also renders Constantinople’s interference (in maneuvering not to seat Met. Jonah) as illegitimate and entirely out of place. Constantinople has no authority over the synod of American bishops and Abp. Demetrios’ refusal to brook the interference was both honorable and canonically proper.

Who knows who Philip is when it makes a difference? We’ve seen he can serve up in speech exactly what motivates people here when the cameras are rolling. When the tire meets the street in meetings where decisions are taken, we later saw, well, other, choices.

He once famously criticized Archbishop Iakovos for ‘blinking’ at Ligonier. But then why isn’t Charles Ajalat still chancellor?

Isa, great point. If I may add, the other bishops do not have a mandatory duty to merge with the OCA at present as even the OCA’s tomos of autocephaly does not invalidate their canonicity. I.E., the tomos did not state that the other jurisdictions were not valid and that the OCA’s duty was to engage them until such a point that a complete merger could take place.

I guess this means that the current EA just concluded is canonical since it was attended by canonical bishops. If so however, then all previous episcopals assemblies were canonical as well, this includes Ligonier.

If I may offer a prediction, and provided that all other things being equal, when the history of the American Orthodox Church is written, Ligonier will be viewed as the First Continental Congress, which in its own day was the legitimate body that governed the United States. It declared independence from Britain, raised an Army and Navy, treated with foreign countries, minted money, etc.

It’s too soon to say what this Episcopal Assembly will be compared to. I hope the Constitutional Convention which codified the laws that would govern the new nation, maintain the standing Army, and ensure the debts that were raised to fight the war. Time will tell.

You all are assuming what is to be proved. If the OCA is autocephalous then Ligonier was unnecessary since all other jurisdictions have a canonical obligation to merge with it or exit. If it is not an autocephalous church then Ligonier was meaningless. The question is not whether an individual bishop has authority. The question is when does a gathering of bishops constitute a canonical synod. What type of a synod is a gathering of a limited number of bishops from several disparate jurisdictions? Precisely what authority to bind, based on tradition, does such a synod have? If you’re suggesting that the non-OCA bishops had the authority to bind the sees of Antioch, Constantinople, etc. to recognizing an autocephalous American Church, absent having been authorized in advance to do so, then what is your reasoning based on tradition? Perhaps Isa could help us out here.

Sorry, didn’t see this earlier.

I’m already beginning to shift through this on OC.net. I already know where it is going, but for an argument like this, I want to go bit by bit, and hopefully get (and answer criticsm as we go along). But to give you an idea in partial answer to your question: there are plenty of canons that require the bishops of a land to meet biannually, starting with Apostolic Canon 37: “Twice a year let a council of bishops be held, and let them examine one another in regard to dogmas of piety, and let incidental ecclesiastical contradictions be eliminated: the first one, in the fourth week of Pentecost, the second one, on the twelfth of Hyperberetaeus.” Do all Churches have a council of bishops twice every year? No, the other canons make that clear and go over the reasons for not etc. Now, do the canons invalidate a local Church whose bishops do not meet twice a year? No. But what the canons do is empower and authorize bishops of a “province” (the term usually used in these canons) to meet in council to “examine one another in regard to dogmas of piety and let incidental eccelsiastical contradictions be eliminated.” The right of the OCA to act in North America is a given (if its autocephaly is accepted). However, the right and duty of the other bishops to meet in this province (i.e. the other jurisdictons) to “eliminate incidetal ecclesiastical contradictions” is also a given, given the canons. It doesn’t depend on the OCA’s autocephaly or the “Mother Churches” authorization, because if the Mother Church is negligent in her duty to “eliminate incidental ecclesistical contradictions,” the bishops of this province are not bound by this negligence.

You all are assuming what is to be proved.

In a way, yes. It’s more an analysis of the factors that lead to policy, rather than an analysis of policy itself which, as you indicate, is still undetermined.

The question is not whether an individual bishop has authority. The question is when does a gathering of bishops constitute a canonical synod. What type of a synod is a gathering of a limited number of bishops from several disparate jurisdictions?

Sure, this is a given. I don’t think the question has a ready-made answer however. It will be answered alongside and with the emergence of American Orthodox self-identity. No outside authority can answer it for us. Moreover, even if one were imposed by foreign patriarchates, I doubt if it even could “stick.”

Thus, I don’t see the lack of a specific answer as debilitating or a cause of frustration. Rather, I think working out these problems and emerging as an American Church work hand in hand.

Take off your lawyer’s hat for a moment. This can’t be resolved by an imperial or legal decree. This has more to do with the internalizing of a tradition by a people who, in internalizing it, also shape it to fit their circumstances thus creating cultural expressions of the faith — Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, and now American Orthodox. That’s the process I am talking about.

It seems to me that the Phanar insisted on its bishops repudiating Ligonier because it was seen as an act of abandoning Constantinople.

No doubt. But in doing so, the canonical force of the Ligonier document was inadvertently affirmed. “Force” is the important term here. It’s vague and imprecise, but only because it describes an ecclesiological reality that precedes and underlies legal precision and certainties. I’m arguing in other words, that a unity pre-exists and underlies the jurisdictional divisions not in theory, but in reality, and that this reality conforms to Orthodox tradition although it has yet to find the proper canonical expression in the American context. SCOBA and the EA’s are merely vehicles by which this unity is being worked out within the anomalies. Ligonier, however, as a conciliar decree, was a document the gave us the glimpse at that underlying ecclesiological reality and brought it into view.

There’s also potential irony here. Constantinople, in spite of assertions of universal supremacy, set the American Church to independence through one of its sons. People a century from now might see Abp. Iakovos and Met. Philip as the early architects of American church, continuing the tradition of mission started by the Alaskan missionaries.

Fr. Johannes,

Whether the churches in America are called diaspora or not does not change the jurisdictional or canonical situation. Therefore, we’re talking about the various subjective emotional reactions that the word elicits from different people. That seems to me to be semantics. As far as “continuing Ligonier” is concerned, what more needs to be “continued” than pressing the mother churches to recognize American autocephaly? How is that “continued” by the EA? It all has the air of “spirit of Vatican II” talk in the RCC which means whatever you want it to mean but objectively means nothing.

Respectfully, I do understand that a bishop has inherent authority. It is also true that a local synod of an autocephalous church has authority within its own jurisdiction, and more widely if it is recognized by the whole Church. Moreover, bishops in surrounding dioceses can have authority over another bishop if that bishop is being tried for some offense.

You all are assuming what is to be proved. If the OCA is autocephalous then Ligonier was unnecessary since all other jurisdictions have a canonical obligation to merge with it or exit. If it is not an autocephalous church then Ligonier was meaningless. The question is not whether an individual bishop has authority. The question is when does a gathering of bishops constitute a canonical synod. What type of a synod is a gathering of a limited number of bishops from several disparate jurisdictions? Precisely what authority to bind, based on tradition, does such a synod have? If you’re suggesting that the non-OCA bishops had the authority to bind the sees of Antioch, Constantinople, etc. to recognizing an autocephalous American Church, absent having been authorized in advance to do so, then what is your reasoning based on tradition? Perhaps Isa could help us out here.

I would be interested to know.

It seems to me that the Phanar insisted on its bishops repudiating Ligonier because it was seen as an act of abandoning Constantinople. If a bishop cannot repudiate such statements then some of us must still be under the Council of Florence.

BTW, I read +Demetrios’ opening remarks. Quite remarkable and sober. Especially towards the last page or so when he talks about the liturgical and canonical variances that exist and how it’s going to be very diffircult to reconcile them. If nothing else, I saw no goarch triumphalism but serious consideration of extremely serious matters.

Finally: to say that my post ‘emotionalizes’ the issue is really disingenuous. While I have a mistrust of most of our leaders when it comes to meetings such as this, apparently you do too. Most of the folks who post here do as well, especially if the leaders are Greek. Do you not think that the attitude of the majority of posts concering the Greek leaders and their motives are not ‘emotionalized’?

I didn’t say that. I said:

Michael, you anger toward Met. Philip is bleeding through and it causes you to question his motives — something you or anyone else doesn’t really know anything about and which emotionalizes the topic to the point where the dispassionate facts get lost.

I’m interested in the dispassionate facts rather than reports on whether or not this is that person likes this or that Bishop. And no, I do not think that the discussions are emotionalized — strongly held perhaps, but not emotionalized.

I’m just curious, what do you see as the canonical authority of Ligonier? It was not a council of the local American Orthodox Church. If there is a local American Orthodox Church it is the OCA. But the bishops of Ligonier were from a number of jurisdictions. Moreover, if they had wished to (read: had the courage) they could have simply broken their ties with the mother churches and merged with the OCA. They did not do so which means they continue to recognize the jurisdiction of their mother churches.

The authority rests in the fact they are bishops of dioceses, not in the fact that they are bishops of particular jurisdictions. Their authority IOW, extends beyond their jurisdictional association which is why the decided it was proper to sign the Ligonier Declaration thereby rendering it canonically valid. Ironically, even the Patriarch of Constantinople affirmed this point (probably to its regret) by forcing the GOA bishops to rescind their signatures rather than dismiss the document as irrelevant. For this reason I think the document still has force.

In the American situation of course the jurisdictional anomalies makes the execution of the document a very difficult and complex affair. Things get confused such as the origins of authority. Clearly the Bishops who signed drew their authority from their ordination as Bishops. OTOH, the other apologetic (expressed as authority is derived from one’s proximity Constantinople) also informs your conclusion that Ligonier is a failure since the Bishops did not immediately break ties with their Mother Churches. My view is that such a break would be rash and cause great harm to the Church. We have to be patient here. Much is at stake and the transition has to handled decently and in order.

The Episcopal Assemblies then, in order to be fruitful (even if that fruit is a slow growth variety) must build on Ligonier, which I think is inevitable because it as a benchmark in the emerging narrative (the emerging self-identity) of American Orthodoxy. The horse is out of the barn even if it walks at a slow gait.

Who do you think is going to change the status quo if it is going to be changed at all? Personally, I’m fine with the status quo jurisdictionally and certainly nothing Met. Phillip said suggests to me he has any intention whatsoever of breaking with the synod of Antioch. However, it seems to me that the only thing that can actually make news is if bishops begin defying their mother churches – – decisively.

Breaking with the synod of Antioch at this point would probably be a foolish thing to do, and certainly if it were done just to prove a point. I’m not fine with the jurisdictional divisions at all (I think it casts a pall over the Church that suppresses its creativity) but I also recognize that things take time to change.

Other than that I would be interested to hear what concrete developments you think will come out of the EA and precisely which bishops, by name, would support what you want or think could occur. And please, no vacuous talk about “continuing Ligonier” or rejecting “diaspora” status. All of that is meaningless, indefinite semantics.

I’ve never really bought the idea that words are just “semantics.” Words are either true or a lie. Yes, lots of words are wasted, but this discussion is not a wasteful one. So, despite your objection to “vacuous talk about ‘continuing Ligonier’ or rejecting ‘diaspora’ status” I think that these ideas are critical in supporting (Ligonier) and dispersing (diaspora) ideas that form American Orthodox self-identity. It is the development of that identity that will make the political actions (the ones you are impatient about) possible. And, when unity happens, it will probably happen very quickly.

P.S. Scott, I’m sorry, I did say you were “angry” towards +Philip. My bsd. Just for the record, the idea of the EP moving to DC is an execrable idea, I don’t care who makes it. And I’d say this if Photius the Great happened to be EP at present. If, after five generations (12 if we’re talking OCA) we don’t have enough native talent to raise up our own bishops, then we’d best fold up our tents and tents and go home.

Scott, you raise several interesting points, many which require great consideration, but if I may briefly say, theological and/or ecclesiological statements of the type made by the Ligonier confreres carry much canonical weight. The charisms of the office of the bishop reside in his person, it’s his duty to teach, preach, and ordain. He is as Cyprian of Carthage said an alter Christus (another Christ). That’s heady stuff. His judgment therefore is going to be more severe than that of a priest, deacon or layman. Ligonier was not just a walk in the park.

That’s why many of us get vexed when we see our bishops at interfaith conferences, issuing vapid declarations about this, that or the other thing. That’s why The Manhattan Declaration was such a huge thing. Truth be told, I respect those bishops who for whatever reason felt that they couldn’t sign it (although I really respect those that did). In a backhanded way, the non-signing of it proves my point.

I don’t want to get pedantic about it and please forgive any offense, but I just don’t see how any foreign synod (and this includes the Chambesy signatories) can “unring the bell” that was rung back in 1994. Perhaps only by admitting that their exarchs here in America weren’t canonical (which I don’t believe). And even for the sake of argument we believe the ethnic exarchs were uncanonical, that still leaves aside the question of the OCA bishops, who you yourself admit, had standing.

Let’s follows this some more. Let’s admit that the foreign exarchs (+Iakovos, +Philip, etc.) had no standing, that they were merely titular bishops and/or auxiliaries. They would have to give account of their presence at Ligonier to their respective synods. Probably be taken to the eccliastical woodshed. They would be asked why there were there, in just the same way that that Romanian bishop was chastised about 2 years ago when he communed with RC bishops. In fact, something like this happened, when the EP forced the GOA bishops to rescind their signatures from the Ligonier Statement. If it was inconsequential and they had no canonical authority, then why this severe reprimand?

This of course brings up several other questions, particularly how can one bishop force another bishop to disavow his actions?

P.S. Scott, I didn’t think that you were angry at +Philip. For what it’s worth, I’ve had more than a few issues with him myself. Last year’s actions were particularly egregious. The only reason I’m defending him at present is because he’s stated the truth: that SCOBA was a conference of canonical Orthodox bishops and that it had standing. And in the interests of being logically consistent, I believe that the local EA meeting presently has all the “competency” it needs to go forward and do whatever it wants. This includes uphold Ligonier, repudiate Ligonier, declare autocephaly, or even disband their respective jurisidictions.

“If Ligonier has no force, then the bishops who authorized it were not canonical bishops. It’s that simple.”

No, it’s not that simple. A synod’s authority is limited to its canonical territory unless its decisions are recognized throughout the church. Did anyone at Ligonier think they were attending a synod of the OCA? Has it been referred to as such since then? Even if it were a synod of the OCA, how could it be binding on any synod besides the OCA when most of the other jurisdictions did not recognize the autocephaly of the OCA?

If you want to suggest that Ligonier was a synod of the OCA, and the OCA’s bishops agree, then I guess that’s all fine and well. But at the end of the day you’re left with an OCA synod, with guests, stating that there should be an autocephalous church in America. The non-OCA bishops had no authority to speak for their synods. So we have OCA reaffirming its own existence. Heady stuff. So what more does that add? Did anyone doubt before Ligonier that the OCA was in favor of a united autocephalous church in America?

It was not a valid synod of a local church (other than the OCA, maybe); i.e., being a synod composed of bishops of a local church, because the bishops present belonged to other jurisdictions. Nothing the non-OCA bishops stated or agreed to was binding in any way on anyone.

Other than the OCA reaffirming its own existence and suggesting that other churches join it, what is the actual canonical significance, specifically, based on tradition? On what basis, assuming that the OCA claimed Ligonier as its synod, could it bind anyone else regarding anything? To be even more specific, unless the synods of Antioch, Constantinople, etc. authorized their representatives (their American bishops) to endorse an autocephalous church in America, how could the agreement of these non-OCA bishops bind even themselves? The question is moot, of course, since the non-OCA bishops were forced to repudiate their Ligonier statement. If they had refused to repudiate Ligonier, then we might be talking. That may have been tantamount to leaving their mother churches to merge with the OCA.

It’s not about the non-OCA bishops at Ligonier not being “free” to move forward. As a number of commentors here have pointed out, autocephaly is more often taken than given. The fact is that the non-OCA bishops lacked the will to leave their mother churches against these mother churches’ will, ergo, at (doubtfully) best, Ligonier was a local council of the OCA, binding on no one else.

And, truthfully, at the end of the day, invoking Ligonier seems to me not to be particularly useful anyway. First, because it was a failure. Second, the only thing that really matters is how many bishops today (and tomorrow, and the next day, etc.) are willing to break with their mother churches and merge with the OCA. Not how many were not willing in 1994. Since the mother churches (besides Moscow) are not willing to let their daughters go, the will of bishops to defect, against their vows, is the only real variable. The rest is hype and moving sideways. And really, just to take this to its logical conclusion, what would happen if even all of the Antiochian and Greek bishops defected to the OCA? Would there not be profoundly hostile property battles? Where would the laity go? Who would get the church property? If you want a preview, look at the Episcopal Church.

PS: I’m not angry at Metropolitan Phillip as George suggests. I don’t have a lot of respect for him given his recent attempt to depose his bishops (which defacto may have been successful). I just sincerely don’t see that he said anything of any significance beyond emotional catharsis.

Paul, your assessment is overall correct, but re the “canon 28” thing, +Athenagoras did not bring it up at that time. That little chestnutt was dusted off by the incumbent patriarch and thanks to Chambesy, has been finally laid to rest.

Balkanize: now that’s a term.

Btw, Arcb. Demetrios’ speech is on the GOA site.

Now for Ligonier, it was a meeting that included all the clergy of these lands, including the Autocephalous primate. That some of the other bishops did not recognize them doesn’t matter much for most, because at the time I believe they were titular bishops anyway. Their have been many, many, many Councils of a local Church where visiting bishops participated. That is the origin of the Standing Synod of Constantinople (canons had to be made to stop bishops from lagging about the capital to sit on it). They were not free to just jump ship to the OCA or form their own synod: you must be canonically released to be canonically received.

That said, the autocephalous primate and his synod, per Apostolic canon 34, participated in a valid synod. As in any council, often the representative of senior patriarch is often invited to chair the synod. That is, for instance, how we know that canon III of Constantinople I was applied, as a synod a decade later in the capital had its archbishop preside, not the Pope of Alexandria nor the Patriarch of Antioch, both of whom were present. That is why the foreign patriarchs presided over the synods that elevated Moscow to a Patriarchate (it was already autocephalous), approve the Nikonian reforms, etc. The senior cleric by rank presides. That was also another reason why the EP did not go to Moscow for the signing of the Act of Canonical Communion between the PoM and ROCOR. If he had, he, and not Pat. Alexei would have presdied. I bring this all up, lest someone bring up that Arcbh. Iakovos of blessed memory, not Met. Theodosios presided over Ligonier.

So we have a valid council, including the autocephalous primate and his synod, and all the resident/visiting canonical bishops making a conciliar decision. The OCA hasn’t repudiated it, and she alone has the competence to do so. So it stands. The fact that Arcb. Demetrios refers to it, despite the Phanar’s desire to cast it into oblivion, reveals where he wants things to go. If Met. Jonah is placed on the executive committee, the fate of the term “diaspora” is sealed and Ligonier will continue.