Shall we just call it what it is? ‘The United Nations for Foreign Orthodox Bishops, populated by local ambassadors, and also, somewhere in a broom closet under the stairs, their local OCA hosts.’

I like Dean’s comparison to the three thousand page ‘hope and change healthcare bill nobody voting for it read first’.

I know we are not supposed to be like the Vatican, looks like we got that done anyhow. Lotsa foreign popes instead of one.

George,

Well…their website is finally up…only took 7 months…see it at http://www.episcopalassembly.org/

It’s been up a month or so, but it really just went live a few days ago.

Same guys gonna be running national health care…

best regards
dean

somewhat along the line of this debate: has anybody heard anything about the recently created Episcopal Assembly for North and Central America?

We agree. A functioning local synod that includes all of the bishops. Still need the bishops though. A real synod would reign in the problem of the ‘young, never married’; the problem of them not actually having an identifiable flock; work toward consitency on reception converts, how marriage outside the Church is to be treated, etc.

One would hope they would also have a social witness that is cosistent with the teachings of the Church and allows for liturgical discipline for pols and others who take public positions that are not in accord with Church teachings.

I would say that the Church is here, but we have a little difficulty in recognizing her and being part of her. After all the Holy Spirt is ‘everywhere present and fills all things…’

I also understand your emphasis on the life of the parish as the test of whether we are in the Church or not.

Michael,

As you read history you know that the church will always be somewhere on the earth– but whether it is where we are is never and was never a guarantee. What you think your are in, what I think I am in, we think is ‘the church’. So does everyone else in a church.

Demanding whatnot, even as the canons require to retain office, from those in office not disposed to pay attention when inconvenient personally, hasn’t worked out so hot.

The time for ‘demanding’ and other whining at those who have demonstrated the ability at listening we see before us is long past whether we are only modestly or greatly ‘sucessfull’. It has become a question of whether we will survive.

Look at those who came together many centuries ago, even then after centuries of church history. Did they say ‘We cannot change on whom we dispense titles and ranks, we have centuries of history! We see priests remarrying and then they die in just a couple years and leave so many widows, so many orphans creating great scandal and suffering we must prevent. But we cannot change, we will be thought weak!’.

No, they didn’t. And neither should we.

We know senior empty nester proven and respected clergy who all in their hearts think of as bishops right here, right now, and would be recognized with that title by the church if only their wife was dead. Medicine has advanced– She lives! Rejoice. Only in the last 100 years. Let’s recognize them with the title they live and rejoice in the life of their bride as well.

We must restore balance in the synods. The actual monastics who are celibate, and not merely required so to be, should be joined with those with the same Spirit given also the blessing of a not-dead wife. We cannot have laity watchdogs, the bishops must be seen to be capable of policing their own ranks. Synods, not a strongman who rewards loyalty by overlooking tragic defrockable faults again and again in exchange.

I am blessed. I live in a Cathedral parish and we have a pastoral bishop who not only knows the priests under his charge, but the rest of us sheep as well. When he is in town and comes to coffee hour, he justs sits and talks with people. Every time I get the opportunity to talk to him like that, I learn something more about the faith. He is open, loving and without pretense. He protects his flock, not with grand gestures or even in any obvious way, but he does gather, feed and protect.

Despite that, there are some who think of him as a tyrant because he does not hesitate to say no when he needs to.

Without the authority he carries, our parish would fall apart sooner or later as we would loose our center.

Without the Apostolic authority, we are not the Church. The questions are: where does that authority exist (in whom); how do we recognize it, and how are we to be obedient to it? Unfortunately, the situation we have in the Church right now makes all bishops, to an extent, vagrante bishops. “We all like sheep have gone astray, everyone to his own way….” To imply that life without a shepard is the solution, as it seems to me you do, is not the way to go.

We need to demand more of our bishops, not less. We need to demand more of ourselves in terms of repentance and obedience, not less.

Personally, I think the Church will seem to dwindle and even without overt persecution, there will be an official Church and an underground Church.

Michael, indeed plenty of focus on the dreaded labels by those who like labels like ‘our father in Christ’ who at the same time could not identify ‘his’ priests family members in a crowd. So we like our fictions, but they are beginning to threaten our future.

We need to be careful that in the midst of the failings of the bishops to act like the bishops we think we want, that we don’t fall into congregationalism.

Dean,

Something must be said about the need for and meaning of ‘a functional penarchy’ if as you write for so long the institution survives without activity on its part.

Perhaps the whole thing is really a fiction and no evident burden layered on top of what really makes all this go: parish life.

‘Tail Wagging the Dog’.

I challenge the readers, on Sunday when you are in church (you will be in church, yes?), look around you at who else is there and ask yourselves and one another: how many among those you see are joined or remain there because of the activity of anyone at ‘the diocese’ or ‘the archdiocese’ or ‘the patriarchate’? External groups the parish has funded all these years. Did they do national advertising that generated benefit? Were people inspired by pronouncements of synod leadership so they joined and remained for more than a season or two?

Exactly.

George, I’m gonna start holding my breath! Gee, the more that we think about it, the less of a bargain it looks.

Hi George,

Re: Basically, I’ve come to believe that the present patriarch is analogous historically to Romulus Augustulus, the last Emperor of Rome in the West. Perhaps I’ve been unfair: it’ll probably be the next one who has that position.

Interesting analogy. As I thought about it, I’d suggest it is MUCH later than Romulus Augustulus…perhaps more like the late Comneni or even Constantine Paleologos.

Keep in mind that after Rome fell in the West, the empire entered a period, maybe 500 years, where there was still the fiction of an empire in the West. The Eastern emperors would give titles to various barbarian rulers – as ruling in their stead – a fiction, but a tangible remnant of the old imperial rule. There was a residue of Rome in the West, made at least temporarily tangible by the reconquest of Justinian. A historical “echo” of sorts.

I’d argue that is closer to what we have been living in, in the Eastern Church, for the past 200 years…living with the remnant fiction of an operational pentarchy…when in actuality the pentarchy hasn’t been operating since the early Ottoman times (perhaps earlier).

Think about it…all of the these fictitious titles, (Bp Savas, Bp of Troy? pleaaaaaaaaaaaase!), the notion of an ecumenical patriarch, ruling over 1000 people…all of it has been more fiction than real for decades. At the same time, the real, living church has passed on to the “live” patriarchates of the national churches, Eastern Europe and Russia…who continue to defer to the ancient, (but moribund) patriarchates for various reasons.

That aside, I’m sitting here scratching my head about the reasons for these actions by Turkey. My gut tells me that Nick’s “Trojan Horse” comment is at least directionally correct. I also think anyone believing that Turkey wants “in” to the EC has not been paying attention to the changing geopolitical role of Turkey…it’s hard for me to believe they see placating the Europeans as serious priority any longer.

That said, I think we make a mistake to try to figure out, rationally, where this will lead for the EP. I read a Thanksgiving prayer to the Theotokos every week after communion…one that I love. Part of it says, “free me from the slavery of my reasoning…”

Or, as Abp Nathaniel has told us, many many times….”It’s His church and He will take care of it.”

I don’t think it’s something we need to, or are capable, of figuring out…very similar to the path to unity here in the US.

Let the Holy Spirit do His thing…we’ll look back, and think, “Yup…made sense all along.”

Just my two cents.

Best Regards,
dean

George:

They might just do that. They want to get into the EU not only for their own reasons but the Muslim world wants them there so they can get another foothold in Europe. I doubt if most Europeans however are familiar with Muslim treachery. Remember the Treaty of Hudaibiya, O Europe, when you invite them to your table. It is one of Islams unadvertised “pillars”.

Now, if Turkey will only reopen the Halki seminary, which it illegally closed in 1970, and give up its control of the northern third of Cyprus, which it illegally seized in 1974, it will be welcomed “with open arms” to the European Union, which Turkey is desperately trying to join!

Now, if Turkey will only reopen the Halki seminary, which it illegally closed in 1970, and give up its control of the northern third of Cyprus, which it illegally seized in 1974, it will be welcomed “with open arms” to the European Union, which Turkey is desperately is trying to join!