Let us for the sake of argument accept your thesis, which I will choose to reiterate as there are certain logical inconsistencies in how the Orthodox Church defines itself. This includes Hopko’s exposition on the nature of the Christian episcopate. Let’s further stipulate that in a fallen world there is no thing or no experience that can logically be consistent each time and in each and every circumstance. Even with these caveats, the experience of history proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hopko’s analysis of the episcopate is more sane, rational, and administratively workable than the papalist model or the quasi-papalist model that is operative in the AOCANA.

Quite simply, the idea that bishops are to be moved around like mid-level managers of a typical multi-national corporation is –and should be–anathema. Indeed, the idea of any local Church being subject to foreign potentate is (to put the best gloss on it) curious. For one thing, it makes a mockery of St Paul’s injunction that Christians were to “pray for the Emperor,” or St Peter’s dictum to “Fear God, honor the King, and love your neighbor.” If this is not the case, then Christians living in one country could hypocritically exempt themselves from paying taxes, serving in the army, etc., or conversely, a local bishop could preach subversion of the local authority because his “archbishop” who is the subject of another polity tells him to do so.

I think we could all agree that these would be horrendous actions, morally unjustifiable and thus endangering our very salvation.

Instead, consider the correct example of St Nicholas Kasstkin of Japan, who when the Japanese launched a surprise attack against the Russian Empire, exhorted his Japanese flock that they were to pray for victory for their nation. Nicholas was no pie-in-the-sky sentimentalist. This morally unjustiable action by the Japanese hurt Nicholas immeasurably. Regardless, Nicholas was not a Fifth Columnist, now was the church which he established a foreign agent. Nor would he permit it to be.

Now compare this with the present situation in which a Greek-American bishop (let’s call him Bishop Esau) sells his birthright (American citizenship) for pottage (Turkish citizenship), for the express purpose of being eligible for election to the Ecumenical Patriachate. When this bishop is asked what he would do if the Turkish government asked him to speak against a parade of Greek-Americans. What answer can he give? Nothing coherent, just something mealy-mouthed.

I don’t mean to pick on any particular colonial eparchy. Just merely point out the problems with having churches run in manifestly uncononical ways. Last year it was the GOA being subjected to the whims of Istanbul (which in turn were based on pseudo-science). Today it is the ecclesial atrocities being perpetrated by Philip who chooses to dress them up in incoherent and illogical arguments. Either way, things are bad and more importantly, they can’t get any better. On the one hand we can expect self-serving actions at worst, or an encroaching papalism at best. Neither option is palatable. Both are unChristian.

Personally, I think they are underwriting the international space station….as a secure ejection pod.

Although at this point, they may not be able to fill it!

Seriously…i wish i knew. I’m sure there are lots of Swiss and Cayman Island accounts. Who knows..the Chambesy Center may have originally been just a cover.

I’ve heard crazier. Come to think of it…you and I have SAID crazier!

LOL

Best Regards,
Dean

I am not popping in to defend Fr. Thomas but to defend Orthodoxy. I think you are confused about two things that lead you to be frustrated at the Church’s self understanding and “messiness”.

The Church cannot be anything other than self-defining, otherwise, it would not be the Church.

There are infallible (or at least supreme) sources of Orthodox doctrine against which any bishop’s (or candidate for the episcopacy) beliefs and practices may be measured. These sources are Scripture, the consensus/writings of the Fathers, the decrees of Great and Holy Synods (i.e., those that are received and accepted over time by the Body of Christ), etc. It is the job of the bishops of the Church, in concert, and in corporately keeping with Tradition as it has been handed down to them, to be the judges of these matters. There is no disagreement within the Church that the Seven Councils are binding. Also, the Council on Hesychasm is considered a sound statement of Orthodox doctrine and normative. Reception is not an open ended process.

Your other point of confusion is the self-defining nature of the Orthodox Church. If it is the Church of Christ (and it is), it cannot be defined by outside criteria. How could the Body of Christ be defined or delimited by anything exterior. It is imbued with the Holy Spirit. This is frustrating sometimes to the faithful since sometimes the Spirit takes time to work out complete clarity. However, the alternative is actually disastrous: Take for example the Ravenna statement which seems to say that the Orthodox Church is those churches in communion with Constantinople. This is not tenable in light of Constantinople’s previous lapse into h*resy during the Union of Florence. Nor could the Roman pontiff be a guarantor of infallibility. Pope Honorius was condemned by a council the Roman Catholic Church purports to accept. For a bishop to have power above and beyond the Church is impossible. The Church, the Holy Community, is the Body of Christ, not one bishop. Most prudent Catholics realize this but it bears stating, Rome is always only one bad pope away from becoming the Episcopal Church.

What perturbs some people is that Orthodox ecclesiology presents them with a very stark choice – – the fundamental choice that all humans face: When you have an entity that is self defining and can’t be measured against any outside rule, you are confronted with the challenge of faith. You can choose to believe, or not believe, that those churches that organize themselves around the Apostolic Faith as defined by the Church itself and guided by the Holy Spirit are actually “The Church” or you can reject that belief. But if you are seeking something above or beyond the Church against which to evaluate it, you will be frustrated since only God Himself is above the Church, but He is also within it and reveals Himself through it.

It really is totally one hundred percent up to you as to whether you believe a) that a particular entity is the Church and b) that you believe in what this entity tells you. There’s no evading that responsibility.

“elected by the people of their dioceses and confirmed by all the bishops of the regional church to which they belong who, as brother bishops, affirm their election by first examining their faith and behavior, and then, when all is found to be acceptable“

then he says:

“The Orthodox Church, of course, has no infallible Pope who exercises direct and immediate episcopal jurisdiction over all the Church’s members in the world, including the other bishops. It has no bishop of any see that can speak in any way binding on all the faithful in matters of faith and morals . . .”

then he says:

“It [Orthodoxy] has no “ecumenical council”, or a council of any kind, that can be considered authoritative, still less infallible, before its decisions are taken and are universally accepted – or perhaps rejected — by all the churches that recognize each other as Orthodox.”

I am more mystified the deeper I look at these ecclesial presuppositions. How can one assert that a potential bishop’s faith (theoria) and morals (praxis) must be “acceptable” as a requisite for elevation to the “Orthodox” episcopacy, and then EXPLICITLY state that “Orthodoxy” formally rejects any binding, authoritative basis for determing exactly what “counts” in faith in morals for the purposes of making such an assessment. It follows as a matter of LOGICAL NECESSITY that recognition of any given episcopal ordination as valid can never be binding on any of the faithful, since the very basis for such ordination (given Fr. Hopko’s ecclesiology) can never be explicated in a binding way in the first place.

This is why there is no obstacle whatsoever to any sector of Orthodoxy “rejecting” any particular theological stance – including ecclesial theories such as Fr. Hopko’s – because there is absolutely nothing within an ecclesiology construced on Fr. Hopko’s terms that binds “all the churches that recognize each other as Orthodox”. They are free NOT to recognize each other as “Orthodox” if one believes the other to have strayed sufficiently from Tradition in terms of “faith and morals”. Nor is there any binding authority to establish just how much “straying” is sufficeint for such a rejection. Such rejection has happened and is happening – as this thread indicates and seems to me to be getting worse as time goes on. Who can arbitrate between Met. Phillip or Bshp. Mark? Sure the Antiochan Patriarch. Well, if the Antiochan Patriarch (apparently) agrees with Met. Phillip, then Bishop Mark can ask to leave Antioch and join the OCA – and he has. If the Antiochan Patriarch sees ecclesiology different than the Russian, who will arbitate between them? No one – because no one has binding authority on Fr. Hopkos’ account

If the Russian Patriarch eventually affirms some joint reunion with Rome that claims to embrace a hashed out solution to the ecclesial role of the Roman Pontiff or the filioque, etc. what will happen? I’ll tell you what will happen. Entire sectors of “Orthodoxy” will judge the move as theologically “unorthodox” and will, on that basis, quite logically (again given Fr’; Hopko’s ecclesiology), no longer see the Russian Patriarch and those who CHOOSE (remember they are not bound) to follow his lead as “Orthodox”. In fact, even within the Russian Orthodox fold there would be many who would not hesitate to make the same charge against their own Patriarch. I remember reading a letter not long ago by Met. Zizioulas expressing frustration with just this sort of reality to his Patriarch.

It is so common to use the phrase “The Orthodox Church” as if that were some recognizable concrete entity. But if “The Orthodox Church” is determined by “all the churches that recognize each other as Orthodox”, and if there is no intrinsic authority within “The Orthodox Church” which speaks with binding authority concerning that which should inform that “recognition”; then who can actually locate “The Orthodox Church” concretely? It is theologically impossible on Fr. Hopko’s account of ecclesiology – think about it. More and more this is looking to my like a smoke screen (no doubt unintentionlly) for something akin to the “invisible church” ecclesial mindset I left behind in Protestantism – an ecclesiology which ACCORDING TO ITS PRINCIPLES – theologically justified and perpetuated endless divisions. Orthodoxy is becoming a mess on the ground in terms of doctrine – specifically ecclesiology – as the current broo-ha-ha aptly reveals.

For the first time, it is dawning on me that this state of affairs is actually logically underwritten by the type of ecclesiology which Fr. Hopko and other like him embrace. Its one thing if disunity arises from the vast panapoly of human sin; it is quite another if the formal principals of one’s theological paradigm necessitate – by their inner logic – the continuation and perpetuation of discord. I know I sound cranky, I just cannot be silent about this any more. The Catholics say that the role of Peter is a constitutive element gifted by Christ as a point of unity for His Church -maybe they are right. I am going to take Fr. Hopko’s advice and read Vatican II, but I fear with a different disposition than the one he intends. I also am aware that St. Cyprian said many other things that are not nearly as conducive to Fr. Hopko’s ecclesial outlook. I am sure Fr. Hopko is a holy man, and so I revere him and pray for him. Still, I cannot help but see the consequqences of his position as I have described. I am happy to be corrected or set straight in this. But then, isn’t that the problem, who has the binding authority to set me straight over against the venerable Fr. Hopko? Pray for me.

In Christ,

Carl

Dean, so, what is it the EP is buying with all that money? They have enough supporters I think to muddle along there are so few of them. What’s the money buying?

This was the basis of my inertia comment. We always tend to do well in the Orthodox Church when it comes to identifying the problem(s), we come up with very astute “stuff” – but when it comes to doing anything about it, more often than not, well, we actually don’t.

I guess this is what Father Tom was talking about when pointing to “praxis” “theoreia” dichotomy we have created for oursleves.

On another forum, I read that some faithful are actually jumping ship from a particular jurisdiction as a response to what Father Tom was talking about. I guess this is what we need to be doing. And in the end, if there isn’t something that resembles a unified Orthodox Church of Christ in North America, a Church body that glorifies and respects and gets along with God’s diverse creation (not one group trying to control or deny the other), then I guess it makes more sense for someone like me to return to the “ethnic ship” where at least I can bring to them what I learned in the “real world” and leave the rest to God.

Christ is in our midst.

Ryan,

It’s simple…follow the money.

When the OCA declared autocephaly (or more accurately, was granted the same), the EP saw one of it’s most lucrative provinces suddenly at risk. Besides that, if you really look at the data (rather than the hyperbole) you will find out that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has really been on the verge of extinction for a very long time. The only sees with any life in them are the ones abroad..America, Australia etc.

Then, along comes autocephaly and the threats to their financial lifelines – i.e. money from the US. Keep in mind that Abp Iakovos even attended the Ligonier conference in the early 90’s….sending shivers down the patriarchal spines.

So what did the EP do? Fire Iakovos, followed by a new charter and ecclesiastical reorganization (metropolises instead of dioceses) designed to “divide and conquer,” i.e. to assure that no united action against the Mother Church could ever be taken, as well as to prevent the rise of another popular, local leader in the US.

This has nothing to do with Christ, and everything to do with dinero.

Best Regards,
dean

PS And if you REALLY want to get a headache…try reconciling the EP’s support of autocephaly all over the world (Georgia, Estonia, Ukraine) with their position here in the US (i.e. NYET!). The only rational conclusion is that they adhere to the Corleone method of diplomacy…i.e., “what’s mine is mine…what’s yours is debatable.” LOL

Ryan, the answer is “yes,” they do prefer the above.

Sheesh, can’t a guy wallow in his denial as self-imposed as it may be? 🙂

Preserve oh God our Holy Orthodox Church in America.