As for Patriarch, I’m a little leary, because the nay sayers can make a valid arguement. For one thing, the see wasn’t moved to Washington until 1981. I’d rather not get into unnecessary fights (especially when the opponent can prove his point): we have plenty of necessary ones to fight.

I still think that the Archbishop of Washington, DC should be the Catholicos. Personally, I don’t think we should get too hung up on what the Old World feels, that is if the Archbishop of DC is prolaimed as “Patriarch of North America.” They’ll get over it in time.

Also, I’m just as vehement in making the metropolitans of Canada and Central America semi-autonomous immediately and fully autonomous eventually. (Probably 10 years for Canada, 30 years for Central America.)

http://www.freewebs.com/orthodoxdetroit/ZarrasThesis.pdf

oops. got posted by mistake. I’ll take it as a sign “that’s enough Isa for now.” But to finish my thought:

(Turkish Orthodox do exist, and not the schismatic papa Eftimites), that should be encouraged. Anything to give the Mother Churches a vested interest in success. That goes for stavropegial status like the OCA Tomos has.

The geographical spread of many bishops within the Holy Synod of the OCNA, and metochia of Mother Churches without but in the OCNA territory in a canonical matter is ment to set up a system of checks and balances that can by its own operation bring the situation into conformity with the canons without undue stress and upheaval.

In short, if all the Mother Churches could sign onto a deal as the Moscow Patriarchate did in the OCA Tomos, abolishing their exarchates and even if they retained 90+% of their parishes as “patriarchal parishes,” it still would be better than what I see comeing from Chambesy.

Yes, for me at least it’s germanine: it’s the only issue involving the PoJ that I care to address. Since he has already divested himself formally of the exarchate, why not let them be PoJ parishes with the same deal the PoM parishes had, and let us move on to unity.

Dean, PM at orthodoxchristianity.net (I don’t put personal info. on the net, lest the ‘bots get it). Or just come to Vespers/DL at All Saints.

To briefly review:

I didn’t go much into Canada or Mexico much, to be conservative (my natural bent). I think that they should either autcephalous themselves or put on the road to that. But I’m not Canadian nor Mexican, nor live there, so I don’t want to speak for them, nor let my own feelings on the matter muddle things.

The sticking point is titles (isnt’ this what it is all about?). If we can introduce the novelty of “Archmetropolitan” (because I think giving our primate the title “patriarch” will send off all sorts of bells and whistles and digress into all sorts of unnecessary arguments), and restore the rank of Metropolitan-Archbishop then that would change my provisional plan. The question is, how much will people fight something new but canonical just because it is canonical?

That’s why I floated the balloon about Antioch getting involved: if a merger can be made with its auspices and blessing, her ancient title of “catholicos” can be put to use and used instead of “archmetropolitan” and avoiding the title “patriarch” which those adamently opposed to autocephaly and unity (you/we know who you are) will/do go apoplectic about.

I basically see 4 levels of episcopal authority: I am not hung up on what titles they have, but many are. For the sake of argument, I’ll leave the objections behind and posit: Archmetropolitan, Metropolitan, Archbishop, Bishop

“Archmetropolitan of All North America”: enthroining him in New York may make more sense if we posit seperate Metropolitanates for Canada, the US, and Mexico. This would approximate not only the Mother Church Russian Model (which now has a seperate Metropolitan for Ukraine, Estonia, etc. within the Russian Church, btw I favor autocephaly for them as I do for Canada and Mexico, but I’m not Russian, Ukranian, Estonian, etc. so I don’t want to press that issue),but also Constantiople’s (e.g. the status of Crete) and that envisioned in canon 28 (with the ancient, proper, interpretation) of the Metropolitans of Pontus, Thrace, and Asia under the EP. It also resembles the old set up of Antioch with its Catholicates in Georgia (now autcephalous), Armenia (ditto), Mesopotomia (now in the Nestorian heresy) and India (status now in dispute). New York may be more neutral to Canadians and Mexicans, but I say that not to speak for them, but to show we in the North American elephant should be open to such objections to Washington and to possible solutions.

“Metropolitan of All America/All Canada/All Mexico”:if we have this next level, then my concern of a Canadian (and Mexican) primate to keep an eye on the Americans would be fulfilled, and the decision of whether they will remove or eventually become autocephalous themselves will be on firm footing, not matter which course is taken. This would also make the added bonus that the Archmetropolitan will be transethnic, but all transnational. Like the Archmetropolitans, these Metropolitans should be barred from having any ethnic defender status, and of course, it would be nice if a rotation of background would build up in each metropolitanate. This would have reprocussions on the next level: as long as Canada, for instance stays in union with America, the Archbishop of Winnipeg will continue as Defender of Ukrainian usage for all of North America (there will, of course, be need for a Ukrainian vicar at the bishop leval at least in America, but should be in any case): he will be on the Holy Synod along with the American bishops. Ukrainians seem more orientated to Canada in any case, a function of history and demographics. If and when Canada becomes autocephalous in its own right, that would have to be reassessed. Ditto with a French bishop if Montreal is in another Holy Synod.

It is perhaps the place here to interject, that just like the Tomos of the OCA on the patriarchal parishes says, the Statute of the Orthodox Church in North America (OCNA) should specify that any such moves, and any moves to abolish a “defender status,” translate/move it, etc. must come from the initiative of those Orthodox affected, and effected only through multilateral agreement of the Orthodox affected, the Archbishop, the Metropolitans and the Archmetropolitan and Holy Synod, and perhaps the Mother Church affected. Actually, I think having the final point in black and white would be a very good thing. It seems to have worked in the case of the PoM.

‘Archbishop of X, Defender of the Y Usage.” I think that I stated elsewhere here somewhere why I have this, as opposed to just a priest serving as pointman: a priest can’t serve as big enough a security blanket. And let’s face it, as there is no shame in admitting it asit reflects valid concerns, we are talking about the need of security blankets to get this going: no one wants to be blanched and homogenized into a general American Church, nor should they have to. Hyphenated Americans/Canadians/Mexicans function quite well in general American/Canadian/Mexican society, they can function in the Church as well. To say otherwise is to ignore the makeup of societies in North America. Hence I place the responsibility on defenders on this level. I think any lower would not give the feeling of security needed, any higher would defeat the purpose of balanace. This is not unprecedented: besides being instituted by St. Tikhon such things are done in Alexandria and Jerusalem (the former much better IMHO than the latter, at least when I was there in the 80’s and 90’s).

Which brings up the concern of tokenism. Let me make the bizarre comparison with the contrast between racism with the 1/8 rule in America and the Classification Bureaucracy in Apartheid. In the former biology was destiny, and not just in the South (I recall someone in Indiana showing his school record which stated “despite student white appearance [he was totally caucasian in appearance], student is colored” because of a black grandmother). In the latter, genealogy wasn’t considered, if one could pass, one could register as white-members of the same family and siblings found themselves in different race groups. So the qualifications for the Defender position need not, indeed should not, be a phyletist determination of parentage and a quota system. If shold be more the way the Antiochian constituion states its qualification for bishops: they have to have a command of English and a familiarity of Arabic. The Defender of the Arab Usage need not be an Arab. My Bishop Mark is not, and I was/am a vociforous defender of his position as my diocesan bishop, although his Arabic is rudimentary. He is not, however, anti-Arab. Many Greeks I see criticize how Russian Met. Jonah is, unaware that he is not Russian at all (I am sure if His Beatitude was made aware of any problem in this area, he would modify if possible. But some criticisms, such as wearing Russian vestments and not Greek ones, are petty as being unavoidable: he has to wear some vestment, and the difference is not his fault. I’m sure he’d don Greek vestments if it would satisfy some folk). But best of all, we have the example of that living saint, Arb. Anastasios. There is a rift (healing slowly I’m told) that he, a Greek, was appointed to head the Church and not an Albanian. However, he is not a Phanariot, and has stood as a bulwark against Hellenization of the Albanians Church. He has not run the Church (like Jerusalem) for the benefit of the Greek Albanian minority. Rather he has explicitly and forcely pushed a program of bringing the Albanian Church out of the ashes up to a level where the Albanians, in Albanian, are masters of their own house. In fact, a constitution for Albania (the country, not the Church) which would have forced his departure was rejected. btw, he refers to his Church as the “Orthodox Church in Albania,” and not the “Albanian Church.” When he celebrated DL at Saranda, near the Greek border and in site of Greek Corfu and well within the Greek minority of Albania, it was suggested that he serve entirely in his native Greek, as nearly everyone there would understand. “No,” his Beatitude replied,”if only two persons need Albanian, we shall have Albanian.” Many Years!

So no, I don’t see it as a token position, but a position that makes clear that being the Defender and its responsibilities are part of the package. St. Tikhon had imput from Antioch on the appointment of St. Raphael and his consecration. I think that is a wise precedent to follow, and will go a long way to making this palatable to the Mother Churches, and assuage the fears of the ethnics. And should things procede smoothly, and people feel confortable enough that they don’t need the security blanket and want to abolish it (although Boston will always have its Albanian history, New Orleans its Greek, etc.), so much that better. In the meantime, a mechanism can opperate (which is canonical: Russian used the same mechanism with the Edinoverie, GOARCH with the Old Calendar groups who have gone canonical, Moscow with the stravropegial patriarchal parishes, etc.)to built good will. Another thing is that I don’t think that tokenism for most groups will be a problem: there will be plenty of Greek, Russian, Arab, CarpathoRussian, etc. candidates for the episcopacy. Why not put one in this place as Defender? The policy of one per need (both at the Archbishop and bishop levels) doesn’t mean the rest can’t serve in sees that don’t have “defender” responsibilities (and I envision a few of those too). The Albanians are heavily concentrated in the Northeast, with only a mission outside in CA (and the EP’s Albanian bishop’s residence, NOT parish, in Las Vegas). The idea would be that at least some bishop, as opposed to the generic All bishops, are on the lookout for the best interests of the group in question, so we can get on with the business of evangelization.

As for people looking to other bishops as their “real bishop,” that happens enough already. I can’t claim innocence:I was born and live in the US and see Bishop Job as the “real” bishop here, but in the Antiochian archdiocese and an Arab (not why I am in the Archdiocese btw) vigorously defend Bishop Mark as my diocesan bishop, but, as an Egyptian, pray for Pope Theodore (and Pope Shenoudah, although I am not Copt). I envision, for instance, coordination of the episcopal visit of the Archbishop of SF (Russian Defender) to the Albanin CA mission as a concelebration of the two hierachs either the Archbishop of Boston (Albanian defender) or the a suffragan of SF who serves as vicar for the Albanians to SF, and am not against a dual mention in the diptychs (something like what goes on in the Moscow patriarchal parishes). The SF Archbishop, as required by the canons, will get top billing. But some econonia wouldn’t hurt and might grease the wheels.

So now, going to “Bishop of X, Vicar of Y Usage in the Archdiocese of Z.” These would be the suffragan bishops, make the Archbishops real archbishops, just as the Archbishops make the Metropolitans real metropolitans. Say we have about 50 bishops in North America. Say that the Archmetropolitan, Metropolitans and Archbishops take up 20 sees (I think it will be less, but just to give enough for positions demanded by “ethnic” needs and for non-ethnic geographical needs). That leaves 30 sees open. They can be spread as geography and ethnicity needs. I suspect every archdiocese will need a suffragan for vicar of the Greeks of the Archdiocese, whereas there will not be such a great need for Albanians, for instance. And if there is some leftover without a need for ethnic defenders, then they can round out the Holy Synod by serving just as geographical bishops. I dont’ favor auxillaries: the titular see bishops should be suppllied by the Mother Churches through their metochia. A vicar can defend interests, while underlining the canonical concept of geography as the basis of the sees.

Some might ask, why not just limit it to one Archbishop and be done with it. Couple of reasons: it puts a lot on one Archbishop. That might not be a problem for the Archbishop of Boston, Defender of Albanian Usage, as most Albanians are concentrated within a days drive of Boston. For the Greeks, that’s not enough: the needs of those in Tarpan Springs is not like those in Seattle. There is another fear I have, and it is based on the experience of a certain uniate bishop here who vowed to squeeze the garlic out of every onion dome, and tried to Latinize his flock into oblivion (some were saved by ACROD). Putting all the defense in one basket can be dangerous. Greeks are not monolithic, nor are anyone else. A wider sharing of responsibility, and a wider geographical spread of that responsibility rather than on one see.

Which is also why, for instance, I would encourage metochia not only for Constantinople, but also for the CoG, Alexandria, Jerusalem and even Cyprus, and why I would have them all OUTSIDE of the Archdioces of New Orleans and All the South, see of the Defender of the Greek Usage. And if Alexandria wanted a second Metochion reflecting its Arab makeup, and another for the African Orthodox perhaps for mission among African Americans (Its been down before. Its a small, small world. Let’s make it smaller for Orthodoxy); and if Jerusalem wants one for its Palestinians and Jordanian Arabs, and if Consatninople wanted to set one up connected to a Turkish vicarate (Turkish Orthodox do exist, and not the schismatic papa Eftimites), that should be encouraged. Any

ALSO balance of oppposite schools also among the greeks metochion athonite

As a side note, I would have some deal worked out by Serbia and the Orthodox Ohrid Archbishoprick with the OCNA on something being setup for the Macedonians, who are numerous enough to warrant their own defender. Perhaps that might help heal the schism of the Macedonian Orthodox in Macedonia. (I’m thinking of the UOCUSA model).

Basically, the set up goes with a basic philosophy of mind which crops up in various situations: if you wait until you are ready to have kids, you will never have them; if you wait until you can afford to give, your wallet will remain forever closed to charity; if we wait until the perfect situation when all disagreements and problems with the juridiction mess are worked out in order to do something, it will never happen.

If you and Dean ever do go out for lunch, call me, I’d be glad to have a conference call. Dean knows my no.

1. Bishop of Richmond
2. Bishop of Baltimore
3. Bishop of Georgetown (he could be his auxiliary/chancellor)

Also, I know I’m forgeting some states.

How about this challenge: to all who are interested in this, let’s put our heads together and come up with some guidelines, and then proceed to draw real, territorial boundaries. For openers: I would like to suggest that the parameters should be:

1. canonical (dioceses should follow/respect political boundaries (i.e. respect the territorial integrity of the existing states).
2. singular (no more than one bishop per city)
3. find out exactly how many bishops there are in North America
4. draw out as many dioceses as necessary to accommodate these bishops
5. keep an eye on the possibility of dividing up dioceses based on future growth, all the while respecting the borders of states. (In other words, should Orthodoxy grow sufficiently in TX or Fl, they can be split off at a future date from the diocese of the South and become their own dioceses.

What do y’all say?

Or, instead, how about this: Each diocese should have as many ethnic auxiliaries as needed. Chicago alone could have one for the Greeks, one for the Serbs, the Arabs, the Romanians, the Bulgarians, etc. These auxiliaries could be protopresbyters and they could meet regularly with auxiliaries from the other dioceses to coordinate their activities (whatever those might be). Of course, they would have to coordinate with their respective bishops as well. A good check-and-balances system that could prevent the further ghettoization of American Orthodox.

My very real fear is that by having the metropolitan of New England be the defender of the Albanian usage (for example), this would lead to two problems: 1) An Albanian-American in Los Angeles would look to him as his “real” bishop instead the bishop in LA. And 2) What would happen upon the death of the Albanian bishop in Boston? This would force the Church to find another Albanian to be his successor. In effect, this would marginalize Boston as an “Albanian seat,” Atlanta as a “Greek seat,” and Chicago as a “Serbian seat.” Kinda like the nonsense that said when Thurgood Marshall died: we were told that this was the “black seat” and it could only be filled by an African-American. This strikes me as tokenism.

Anyway, I like your thinking. I just hope that the episcopal assembly (should it meet) will be as serious about this as we are.

Just for want of Space I didn’t go through all the sees, just sketch the general idea. I didn’t touch, for instance, what should be the set up if it is decided that Canada and Mexico should be their own Churches.

I just happened to be awakened. Hopefully I’ll get back to this to comment when I have time.

Here’s my take, tell me what you think:

1. Archbishop of Washington, DC, Metropolitan of the United States and Patriarch of North America. (states: VA, DE, MD)

a. Archbishop of Boston and metropolitan of New England (defender of Albanian usage) (states: ME, MA, CT, NH, VT)
i. Bishop of Lowell (defender of Greek usage)
ii. Bishop of Stamford (defender of Russian/Ukrainian usage)
iii. Bishop of Portland

b. Archbishop of Albany and metropolitan of the Mid-Atlantic
i. Bishop of Manhattan (NY, NJ)
ii. Bishop of Brooklyn (defender of Arabic usage)
iii. Bishop of Queensboro (defender of Greek usage)
iv. Bishop of Utica (defender of Italo-Greek usage)
v. Bishop of Trenton (defender of the Ukrainian usage)
vi. Bishop of Newark

c. Archbishop of Atlanta and metropolitan of the South (states: AL, AR, GA, MS, FL, OK, TN, SC, NC, TX
i. Bishop of Miami (defender of the Cuban usage)
ii. Bishop of Birmingham
iii. Bishop of Charleston
iv. Bishop of Dallas
v . Bishop of Houston (defender of the Mexican usage
vi. Bishop of New Orleans
vii. Bishop of Oklahoma City (defender of the Amerindian usage)

d. Archbishop of Springfield and metropolitan of the Midwest (IL, WI, IN, MO)
i. Bishop of New Gracanica (defender of the Serbian usage)
ii. Bishop of Chicago (defender of the Greek usage)
iii. Bishop of St Louis
iv. Bishop of Kansas City,
v. Bishop of St Paul/Minneapolis (defender of the Ruthenian usage)
vi. Bishop of Indiannapolis

e. Archbishop of Denver and metropolitan of the West (CO, KS, NM, SD, NB, ND, WY, MT, UT)
i. Bishop of Wichita (defender of the Arab usage)
ii. Bishop of Sioux Falls (defender of the Serb usage)
iii. Bishop of Albaquerque (defender of the Hispanic usage)

f. Archbishop of Philadelphia and metropolitan of the Monangahela Valley (WVa, OH, KY, MI)
i. Bishop of Charleston, WVa
ii. Bishop of Louisville, KY
iii. Bishop of Pittsburgh
iv. Bishop of Wilkes-Barre (defender of the Carpatho-Rusyn usage)
v. Bishop of Detroit (defender of the Romanian usage)
vi. Bishop of Toledo (defender of the Arab usage)
vii. Bishop of Cincinnati
viii. Bishop of Cleveland

g. Archbishop of Sacramento and metropolitan of the West Coast (CA, AZ, WA, OR, NV
i. Bishop of Los Angeles
ii. Bishop of San Francisco
iii. Bishop of San Diego
iv. Bishop of Phoenix
v. Bishop of Portland
vi. Bishop of Seattle
vii. Bishop of Las Vegas

h. Archbishop of Fairbanks and metropolitan of Alaska (AK)
i. Bishop of Sitka (defender of the Amerindian usage)
ii. Bishop of Juneau
ii. Bishop of Anchorage

_______________________________________________________________________

2. Archbishop of Ottawa and metropolitan of Canada, Defender of Ninuvit usage
a. Bishop of Montreal (and defender of French usage)
b. Bishop of Winnipeg (and defender of Ukrainian usage)
c. Bishop of Vancouver
d. Bishop of Toronto (and defender of Greek usage)

________________________________________________________________________

3. Archbishop of Mexico City and metropolitan of Central America
a. Bishop of Tegucigalpa
b. Bishop of Vera Cruz
c. Bishop of Managua

What do you think? I like your idea of “defender of [ethnic] usage” but I wanted to make it more territorially compact. There’s really no reason why a Palestinian immigrant living in Chicago should have to go all the way to Brooklyn to air his grievances when there’s a huge Arab concentration nearby in Toledo or Dearborn.

As for the eparchies, yes, we are of course asking for them to be turned over. What might be done, however, rather than a full takeover, would be what Patriarchate of Moscow did with the Patriarchal Parishes in the Tomos of Autocephaly. Condemned as uncanonical by some (basically those who don’t like the Tomos and look for any excuse), I think it a rather good use of economia to solve problems. A number of parishes who were not sure about autocephaly were given the option of staying under Moscow and were exempt from the Tomos, being Stavropegial. The Tomos states that Moscow would not force them into union with the OCA without their consent. However, it also said that it would not release them to any other jurisdiction besides the OCA, and that they would be headed by a vicar bishop of the Patriarchal parish who did not hold the title of a see in North America, specially appointed for this purpose. They could only be received by the OCA on the parish’s own initiative and bilateral agreements in each case between Moscow and the OCA. Moscow also stated it would not receive any canonical Orthodox on the territory of the OCA (uncanonical groups were exempt: I think this was a veiled reference to the Ukrainians). On OC.net we tried tracing the fates of these parishes. Some have still remained under Moscow, but that might not mean anyting: Met. Jonah was received and grew in Orthodoxy in one such parish. The parishes are directed to commemorate Met. Jonah right after the PoM (this I believe was right after the EP’s Chief Secretary’s speech, but I may be remembering incorrectly). Many, perhaps most (I dont’ recall) joined the OCA (though I think one jumped and left Moscow and joined an uncanonical group). The Tomos also requires Moscow and the OCA to maintain “sincere fraternal relations..guided by the bilateral agreements” which had already been signed. Finally, Moscow abolished its exarchate in North and South America and its dioceses.

A similar deal could be worked out with all the Mother Churches.

Of course, we know not all Mother Churches are equal. Problems that is.

Starting with the Czcech and Slovak lands, she recognizes the OCA, and really has no claims at all in North America, her children being from the uniates. I think she would be thrilled being asked to take a metochia, and having a CR/Rusyn/Ruthenian Metropolitan being enthroned in North America.

Poland recognizes the OCA, and likewise doesn’t seem to have any claims. The Polish Orthodox I’ve known in the US are integrated into other parishes and not together. I’d like to have a suffragan bishop around Chicago, Polish capital of the world, for mission purposes. Also to hopefully bring the Polish National Catholic Church, now that it has been expelled from the Union of Utrecht for upholding traditional Christianity (the Nordic Catholic Church, when rebuffed by the GO bishop (another lost opportunity: he said he didn’t want to give the idea that Orthodoxy was for Scandinavians), got its orders from the PNCC (I don’t comment on their validity, just note that unlike the talks with the Episcopalians, this dialogue isn’t a waste of time). No problems here.

Albania doesn’t officially recognize the OCA, but the OCA’s diocese of Boston is the Mother Church of Albania. If Fan Noli is canonized, there might be closer relations. I was just speaking with missionaries in Albania, and they said that there has been no real linkage between the Albanians in North America because of the EP’s appointment of a Greek as Archbishop of Albania. Arch. Anastasios, however, is no Phanariot. Hopefully the Albanians here can appreciate him as much as those in Albania do. I am still rather unclear on the set up with Archbp. Ilia: who sends him to be primate of the Albanian Orthodox Diocese of America? The EP? What connection does he have with the Albanian Church? Frankly, I’m sure the Albanian Church would like to have better links to the Albanians here, and should. I don’t see much problem here.

Ah, the Church of Greece. The 800 pound gorilla in the room. Let’s face it, this is GOARCH’s Mother Church, not Constantinople, and should be treated as such. Perhaps by having a metochion in SF, and a Greek American one in Athens, she can be persuaded to deal directly and not viacriously through Constantinople. Saying such can be the third rail however. Since no chrism is received from the CoG, nor bishops officially, etc. there is not much to be done here. Maybe a collection for Constantinople in honor of the CoG (which has reached a point where it doesn’t need the money) on Annunciation, the metochia and the treatment of the Athonite monasteries as stavoropegial, might be enticing. But make no mistake:this is Constantinople (not so) silent partner. (and ironically, this daughter of Constantinople I argue is more Apostolic than the EP)

The Church of Cyprus, from what I’ve seen, has no independent voice outside Cyprus. It votes with the EP (i.e. with Greece), although it makes a large part of the Greek diaspora (no quotation marks, as they see it), but not so much in North America (Britain and Australia is a different story). They are well representated among the general Greek population, but dispersed. A collection might be had for Cyprus on St. Barnabas day, and more active pressure on the US government from a United North American Orthodox Church to pressure Turkey on resolution of the Cyprus issue, which would help with the “Greek Question” all around (and being quite Orthodox and right to boot). A Metochion of its own where ever the highest concentration of Cypriots are in North America might sweeten the Baklava for the Greeks in general to the deal.

The Bulgarians recognize the OCA, and in fact the Bulgarians form one of the OCA’s constituent dioceses. Bulgaria does have its exarchate here, which it says is an integral part of the Bulgarian Church. But since it doesn’t much interfere with the functioning of the OCA as far as I can see, it’s not a problem. Doing to the Bulgarian exarchate as Moscow did with its exarchate, even if all the parishes stay with Bulgaria, it would regularize the situation somewhat.

Romania is more of a problem as there is more history. Bucharest doesn’t recognize the OCA, but hasn’t been implacably hostile: when I was in Romania in 1992, there was contigents from the OCA working with the Church in Romania (my ex wife is Romanian, so I’m VERY familiar with this. I take our sons to the Exarchate Cathedral every month). But the Romanian version of ROCOR joined up in the OCA as a constituent diocese. There might be some sore feelings on the refusal of the OCA Romanian Episcopate, and Bucharest seeing no difference between that and the Moldovan Church under the Patriarch of Moscow (they see both as being “with the Russian,” a VERY bad thing in Romanian mentality). They can be very ethnic, and is an example of what Met. Jonah said was the third view of “diaspora” (vs. the OCA and the EP’s), basically phyletism, but at least if the DL is in Romania, you can be sure that the coffee hour will be too. The last service I was at the exarch cathedral the exarch switched to some parts to English, I suspect because he saw some non-Romanians in the congregation. In constrast, someone has called Dormition Monastery the bleeding edge of Orthodox Unity. Anyway, I don’t think much can be done here, but thankfully I’m not sure much has to be done. Romania will play along, especially if the stavropegial set up is approved for its exarchate.

Serbia also doesn’t recognize the OCA’s autocephaly, although it recognized the Russian Archdiocese’s jurisdiction, and the Serbs were canonically transfered to Belgrade. They also have a sort of phyletist view of Orthodoxy, although they also are not hostile to the OCA. A problem was that Serbia had its own problems overcoming its own schism. I think if some deal like the Moscow stavropegial solution is worked out, it might tip the scales: I’ve heard that there are rumblings among the native born North American Serbs vis-a-vis the those born in Serbia and the headquarters in Belgrade. Then there’s the Macedonian problem (which I don’t think we should preempt Serbia’s solution). Btw, this issue of Touchstone has a good article by Fr. Pat. on the Serbs, and the vision of the Decani Monastery. In any case, I think if the ball gets rolling, Serbia won’t get in the way.

Georgia just recently entered the jurisdiction game. If their sole, new parish is made a metochion, and better accommodations made for the Georgians here (I don’t know, maybe there is enough of them here for a Metropolitan or at least a suffragan bishop), I would expect no problem, especially as it is an ancient Patriarchate which DOES recognize the OCA.

For Russia, most problems have been solved. The sole exception is ROCOR. The best course here, given the history, would be to let ROCOR continue in North America as is, and let that unification take its natural course.

Jerusalem makes me sick what it does in the name of tomb worship. I’d rather not speak of it. It won’t be able to stand in the way once the ball gets rolling.

Antioch doesn’t officially recognize the OCA, but in many ways unofficially does. Because of all the talk already on union, I’ll not dwell on it here.

Alexandria basically follows the EP and CoG’s lead, when it is not circumventing it (Alexandria has tried to have an exarch here twice). If given a metochion, and maybe a Metropolitian being earmarked for the African Americans, a collection on St. Marks day by the whole OCNA (Orthodox Church North America) for missions in Africa might, which other incentives to the Greeks as a whole, win her over.

Then there’s Constantinople.

To start off there are two things: the EP is in an existential struggle to survive which we should support any way possible.

It is also trying to promote its dogma of the neo-canon 28. We must resist this in any way possible.

This is basically in a class by itself, the highest hurdle. Maybe I should wait for response for the foregoing before continuing.

To sum up, the deal can be that which Moscow fashioned for itself. I would only require that decisions to unite or stay under a foreign patriarch (but not exarch, which would all be abolished) be made on a parish by parish level. We mady not get the majority of the parishes, but I think we would get enough of a critical core to make a go of it, and allay the fears and prove our point to the extent that if we build the united Orthodox Church in North America, the rest will come.

PS I didn’t comment on the chrism quesiton because I recruse myself. I firmly beleive every autocephalous Church should consecrate its own chrism, but I realize not all do, and I don’t want to digress/be hung up on that issue.

Sorry…hadn’t read your response carefully enough.

Constantinople will have Holy Trinity in NYC as its Metochion, Antioch some Church in the Detroit area, Russia will retain the Cathedral in New York it has now, Georgian can change the parish it just founded into its metochia (btw, if there are enough Georgians for a Metropolitan, they should by all means have one. Otherwise a suffragan to the Archbishop sould be appointed), Serbia can have Libertyville (the King is buried there anyway), Romania can keep the Cathedral it has in Chicago, the Church of Greece will have Annunciation SF as its metochian, Albania have St. Nicholas in Chicago, Czech and Slovak lands a parish in Western Pennsylvania, etc. The Metochia, besides serving as ambassadors to the Archbishop of North America, will also serve as consulates to their respective ethnicities and the Metropolitans who are designated their defenders. I purposely put the Metochia outside of the Metropolitanates of their ethnicity: that way each group can feel all the more that !
all bases across the continent are being covered in their interests, i.e. someone on all three coasts are looking out for the Greeks,etc.

Interesting…so you would have representation churches of ALL the Mother Churches in various “homeland” areas of that ethnic group..here in America? I see.

What about the reverse? Would there be institutions over there, from here?

This is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. It’s a GREAT start.

What else?

Best Regards,
Dean

Isa,

Fascinating…you are proving the point i raised above…many on this blog have devoted a LOT more brain time to Orthodox unity than many of our bishops.

Ok…so I understand your domestic setup. I really like many of the elements of the system…very balanced, very comprehensive.

Now tell me this: would there be any formal connection, by the various ethnic metropolitans, with the Old Country? I understand (and like the idea of) the concept of the ethnic metropolitan being the “point man” on all matters Greek/Arab/Romanian etc. makes sense…guarantees that this will not be a homogenization process in disguise. At the same time, this may result in a serendipitous creation of an American Orthodoxy..pulling on the best of all the traditions…WOW..what a thought! An American Orthodoxy inspired by both Romanos, Rachmaninoff, and Tchaikovsky. The possibilities here are endless and exciting.

But tell me about what kind of formal/informal/other connection there might be with the Old Countries?

The reason I raise this – in the absence of some sort of “representation” or formal connection – aren’t we simply asking all the Old World patriarchates to turn over their eparchies to the American Church? I can’t imagine them doing that without some formal “link” – be that an agreement, formal representation…something. This is the part I can’t figure out.

There are many possible mechanisms…Your metochia idea…do we establish stavropegial institutions of each Old Country somewhere (a la representation church of St. Catherine’s in Moscow)…or does the chrism come from the Old Country? Is there some sort of representation on the Synod of the Old Country? Does it go both ways?

I’m looking for a mechanism which could be held out…seriously…to the various ethnic jurisdictions (as well as to the Mother Churches) and allow us to say “And this is how we guarantee the link will remain for as long as you and they (the eparchy) wish.”

Any thoughts? Am I on the wrong track?

You and I really need to have lunch/dinner sometime. We can pull Michalopulos in by telephone (and maybe Fr. Pat too)…LOL

Thanks in advance.

Dean