Posts
On March 16, 2009 I had the pleasure to attend a timely lecture at Holy Cross Chapel in Brookline, MA given by Archimandrite Elpidophoros Lambriniadis, Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople. The lecture was titled Challenges of Orthodoxy in America and the Role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Little did I know that from this brief lecture there would arise such a reaction of deep seated hostility against the Ecumenical Patriarchate.I will not summarize the lecture, since it can be read in full at the link provided below, but the controversy lay in the proposal for the submission of the diaspora to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople as prescribed by the Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Synods in order to bring unity among all Orthodox abroad. This proposal comes at this time in response to two hierarchs in America, Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church In America and Metropolitan Phillip of the Antiochian Archdiocese in America, who seek unity in the diaspora not according to the Holy Canons of the Ecumenical Synods which provide the true formula of unity, but according to relative quack principles formulated in their own minds as to how the Orthodox diaspora should govern themselves. In his lecture, Fr. Elpidophoros gave very precise answers to previous statements of these two Metropolitans that were beginning to undermine the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate with some surprisingly ignorant misrepresentations and misunderstandings of even the most basic form of Orthodox History and Ecclesiology.
On April 5, 2009 Metropolitan Jonah gave a sermon after a Pan-Orthodox Vespers at St. Seraphim Orthodox Cathedral in Dallas, Texas to respond to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Immediately video of this sermon leaked onto the internet and it also can be seen in a link below with the transcript. A response to this sermon is hardly necessary for anyone with a knowledge of Orthodox teaching and history since it is so badly articulated to the point where he is on the verge of ecclesiological heresy. But what further struck me was the utter disrespect and immaturity displayed by this newly-enthroned hierarch.
One heresy that I would like to point out was his interpretation of the hierarchical structure in the Orthodox Church. According to Metropolitan Jonah, who seems to be relishing in his uncanonical "autocephalous" status in the OCA (which I may add fails to even unite the Russians in America), since America has bishops in all its jurisdictions there is no need for these bishops to submit to a higher bishop in a far away land. Such a statement can only be a display of willful ignorance of the canons which clearly speak of certain bishops being under the authority of other bishops as "first among equals", just as he himself is a bishop with authority over other bishops as a "first among equals". Let alone the fact that he ignores Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod which clearly unites the diaspora under the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (as was the tradition throughout the period of the Roman Empire and even during Ottoman times as attested by the granting of autocephaly to the Russians in 1589). The Metropolitans statement is an uncanonical proclamation for autocephaly which only can be granted with the approval of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as well as the other Ancient Patriarchates. His carelessness in such statements is obviously the result of speaking without thinking to rally a revolution against, his oft quoted, the "Old World" hierarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and other Ancient Sees.
The main appeal of the Metropolitan is to Convert sentimentalities. In his lecture he constantly derides the Ecumenical Patriarchate as being "Old World", "foreign", "controlling", "a pope", "nationalist", "imperialist", and "ignorant" among other things. He says that because we are Americans the Phanar "doesn't understand" the concept of freedom that we love as well as our rich diversity, and that we can "determine our own destiny" without their guidance because they do not "appreciate our culture". He accuses the Phanar of not listening to its priests and laity, of being Orthodox Christians because they were born into it as opposed to Americans (his Convert audience) who chose it, of following ideologies of a "forgotten Empire", of not allowing "a word of English" in services and have "never heard English" themselves. The Metropolitan expressed his fears of America being imposed with "foreign customs" and "foreign despots" where "all decisions will be made by a patriarchate still under Islamic domination." And he goes so far as to say: "If we wanted a pope, we'd be under the real one."
Metropolitan Jonah's proposition for America is to be independent of foreign influence and be a "unity in diversity" here in America as we seem fit. He offers no plan on how this can be done of course, and offers no authority or example to follow. Basically he knows what he doesn't want, but doesn't know what he does want hoping that in the end his rebelliousness is endorsed by the Holy Spirit.
In his sermon the Metropolitan also expresses some historical beliefs that are common inaccuracies among the OCA as a whole. For example, that the OCA is the direct inheritor of the first Orthodox mission to the natives in Alaska by such luminaries as Sts. Herman and Innocent of Alaska, as well as the founder of the first established church in the New World in San Francisco, and by such a default they should have sole authority in the New World. Also he says that before the establishment of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in 1922 all parishes were under the Russian Patriarchate.
The truth is that the great majority of the OCA, then known as the Metropolia, have their origins in the conversions of the Uniates lead by St. Alexy Toth and were only one of three representatives of the Russian community in America of that time (including ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate) and have no direct epicopal line to St. Herman (who was not even a bishop or priest). Furthermore, Greeks were the first to establish a presence on American soil in New Smyrna, Florida in 1767, 26 years before St. Herman arrived in Alaska in 1794, which was not American at the time (being part of the Russian Empire). Also the first Orthodox parish established on American soil was by Greeks in New Orleans, Louisiana in 1864, three years before Alaska became American and four years before the first Russian parish was established in American territory (in San Francisco). And many of the Greek parishes before 1922, as well as other jurisdictions, because of their remote locations, often pledged their allegiance to either the Church of Greece or Constantinople or any other Mother See. In fact, the Ecumenical Patriarchate held jurisdiction over the Greek parishes until 1908 when authority was transferred to the Church of Greece for a short time until Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis restored the original status of the Greek churches under the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1922. For further enlightenment on the non-canonicity of the OCA, which is rejected by all the Ancient Patriarchates today though is graciously allowed to be in communion with them, one can refer to the 1972 book Russian Autocephaly and Orthodoxy in America: An Appraisal with Decisions and Formal Opinions by the Greek Archdiocese.
If one were to honestly compare the talks given by Fr. Elpidophoros and Metropolitan Jonah, it would be surmised why the Ecumenical Patriarchate correctly sees the Orthodox of America as too immature for true autocephaly. The first maturely tackles the issues and gives appropriate proofs from Synodal decrees and has a firm understanding of our situation here in America with an authentic concern to see spiritual growth and prosperity. The other comes off as embarrasingly ignorant, shallow in its spirituality, and vitriolic as summarized in his last words hoping to stir another American Revolution: "Let us affirm to our bishops that they might tell the churches of the Old World, 'There is an American Orthodox Church! Leave it alone!'"
Americans would be wise to sweep their patriotic pride under the rug when it comes to ecclesiastical matters. Pride is the source of the divide among American Orthodox on this issue. Humility is the source of stability and we should all have faith that when the "fullness of time" comes for our autocephaly, the Lord will make sure it happens without our passions getting involved.
Lecture by Archimandrite Elpidophoros Lambriniadis:
If one were to honestly compare the talks given by Fr. Elpidophoros and Metropolitan Jonah, it would be surmised why the Ecumenical Patriarchate correctly sees the Orthodox of America as too immature for true autocephaly. The first maturely tackles the issues and gives appropriate proofs from Synodal decrees and has a firm understanding of our situation here in America with an authentic concern to see spiritual growth and prosperity. The other comes off as embarrasingly ignorant, shallow in its spirituality, and vitriolic as summarized in his last words hoping to stir another American Revolution: "Let us affirm to our bishops that they might tell the churches of the Old World, 'There is an American Orthodox Church! Leave it alone!'"
Americans would be wise to sweep their patriotic pride under the rug when it comes to ecclesiastical matters. Pride is the source of the divide among American Orthodox on this issue. Humility is the source of stability and we should all have faith that when the "fullness of time" comes for our autocephaly, the Lord will make sure it happens without our passions getting involved.
Lecture by Archimandrite Elpidophoros Lambriniadis:
Sermon by Metropolitan Jonah:
Metropolitan Jonah's proposition for America is to be independent of foreign influence and be a "unity in diversity" here in America as we seem fit. He offers no plan on how this can be done...I believe this was the plan he offered:
ReplyDelete"It is imperative for us to come together. Not for all the other churches, the Antiochians and the Serbians and the Bulgarians and the Romanians and everyone, to join the OCA,but to come together in a new organization of Orthodoxy in North American that brings us all together as one Church, even just pulling together all our existing organizations so that all the bishops sit on one Synod, so that all the Metropolitans get together on a special Synod or something like that."
Note, he is not even saying that all the dioceses and jurisdiction need be 'merged' nor that the local jurisdictions even break their official ties to their Mother Churches. He is simply saying that "There is [already] an American Orthodox Church" - not the OCA, but all of the Orthodox jurisdictions already in America, including the OCA but also including the GOA, the Serbs and Romanians and Bulgarians (in and out of the OCA), the MP/ROCOR, the AOCA, etc.
I think it is important to hear the arguments you make because it is quite representative of the EP's position. Likewise, I think it important for supporters of the EP to exit the 'echo chamber' and listen to the concerns of not only converts but also of those Orthodox Christians who felt the influence of the Phanariotes and who, like the EP prior to the 1920s, understand Canon 28 of Chalcedon in a different way than is put forward today by the EP. The 'granting' of autocephaly has not ever truly been worked out; everyone wants the EP's approval for conciliar reasons in the same way the Eastern Patriarchs always sought the approval of Rome in the first millenium of the Church - consistently holding out approval (or not) is not the same as being the one who officially and necessarily 'decides'. There is a great deal of history - and not just from 'converts' unless that also defines the Slavs - that does not accord with the EP's view on autocephaly. It's a well worn difference with the EP and one that should be more openly discussed.
Thanks for your comments Orrologion. You bring up good points. I was aware of Metropolitan Jonah's supposed "model" of Church unity here in America. There are a few things that are troubling however. It is not exactly as you interpret it. He calls for a "new organization of Orthodoxy in North America" (not as you think where it basically stays as it is) that practically makes absolutely no sense and is even contrary to canon law on how a region should be ecclesiastically governed. Because he is relishing in his uncanonical autocephalous status, he somehow thinks that it is ok for the other bishops of America to rebel against their Mother Sees and create a schism until they are recognized as autonomous. Practically, this is the only way his model can work. Then when schism is declared, somehow we are to form a synod where we still have many bishops to a diocese (which is against the canons and tradition of the Church) and many Metropolitans to a metropolis (which is also against the tradition of the church for ecclesiastical unity). Therefore what I get from his "new" ecclesiastical model is a propostion for innovation that leads to catastrophy.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I hope my arguments do represent the position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate because I fully agree with the proposition of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It is the only sure model for ecclesiastcal unity in America that aims to prevent schism, provide a model acceptable to the prescribed canons for church unity, and will allow us to gain autonomy when we reach organizational and spiritual maturity. The models proposed by Metropolitan Jonah and Metropolitan Phillip do the opposite.
Also, the Ecumenical Patriarchate prior to the 1920's did not understand Canon 28 of Chalcedon any differently than they do now. I'm sure you have no evidence to back your claim. Maybe historical circumstances didn't allow the Ecumenical Patriarchate to exercise its full rights, but there was absolutely no change in exegesis. As I said above, the interpretation of the Canon can be seen applied throughout the time of the Roman Empire after the fifth century even through Ottoman times. The difficulty came in the 19th century during the Ottoman wars and especially Balkanization when all the churches in the Balkans were in various schisms with the Ecumenical Patriarchate which created a huge mess in the diaspora.
The real essential problem is that the Moscow Patriarchate still has an ego problem with its "Third Rome Theory" created by the Slavophiles in the 19th century, which is interpreted in a way to diminish the role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in both the diaspora as well as in episcopal dispute resolution.
Though autocephaly does not have explicit canons we can reference, it does have protocol and a long tradition to prevent schism and promote unity. And it is against the tradition of the Church to grant autocephaly without the approval of all the Patriarchates, otherwise this creates schism. This is the view of all the ancient Patriarchates as can be seen in their position towards the OCA, except Moscow of course which does not follow proper protocol. But as you say, it needs to all be discussed and it will be discussed this summer.
forgive me for my stupidity in these matters, but not the EP go against our Orthodox canon Law VI "It is not permitted to heretics to enter the house of God while they continue in heresy"
ReplyDeleteCanon XXXIII "no one shall join in prayers with heretics or schimatics"
Canon XXXIX
It is not Lawful to feast together with the heathen and to partake of their godlessness"
when he had celebrated Divine Liturgy with the roman pope.
I feel this should have been an automatic expulsion from our church.
for the EP. not to point fingers, but the seriousness of the ecumincal movement within the church is wrong and should be quickly delt with. We should not be part of it. This is taking away from our Orthodoxy and slowly causing us to become just like all the other religions of the world.
God help us, Save us, and have mercy on us
Someone who lived in Lubbock TX, which is a large city, surrounded by miles and miles of very flat, arid land, told me that "Lubbock is not in the middle of nowhere, but you can see it from there". In like manner, the EP is not a heretic, but ...
ReplyDeleteHis actions, rhetoric, political maneuverings all are very problematic. I do not subscribe to his "brand" of Orthodoxy.
The point about OCA autocephaly is correct. Is was a bad thing, a political thing, and did more to hurt than help. It was not done with consensus of the other Patriarchates. Now with a very ambitious Metropolitan who sometimes seems to be applying for the job of America Patriarch, things are even more messy.
I believe that autocephaly was one of the steps made, in the bad old days when the OCA and ROCOR were in an extended cold war, that partially was designed to separate the OCA from the ROCOR. The other horrible mistake was to change the calendar, which in my opinion, was to further separate the "church in America" from ROCOR. The best thing for unity would be for the OCA to reverse its mistakes, and have union with ROCOR, as equals (but with one calendar). Then the Russian church which originally evangelized the continent would be whole.
At this point, there would be a greater possibility for unity, because there would be a strong, united, non-medernist Orthodox witness. For this to happen Metropolitan Jonah will need to be a lot less ambitious and more humble about the recent history of the OCA (which has floundered, by almost any account), and its former relationship with ROCOR. The key to union is for the OCA to return to its monastic roots, which it has essentially left a long time ago, and be one with ROCOR.
Priest Seraphim Holland
http://www.orthodox.net
I won't say you're stupid, but you may be cherry picking here. Just because the Ecumenical Patriarchate could be wrong in one issue, does not mean they are wrong in every issue because of the other one. Personally, I don't agree with everything the Ecumenical Patriarchate has done in the past, but I do agree on this issue I tackle in my article above.
ReplyDeleteI happen to agree with you that the Ecumenical Patriarchate went too far when the Pope visited the Phanar. But while they may have gone too far for our tastes and overstepped canonical boundries, nothing was done to invoke a schism against the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Not all Canons require expulsion from the Orthodox Church if not strictly followed (otherwise we are all doomed). The canons do not anathemitize their actions with the Pope to the point where communion is to be broken. The Pope did not serve in the Divine Liturgy nor was there intercommunion, but he did sit in a place of honor reserved for hierarchs and pray joint prayers. If the Pope did partake of Holy Communion and served in the Divine Liturgy, then it would be a sin against the Church which they would have to give an answer to. But he didn't. The Pope was just given a bit too much honor and it all gave a false impression. Mount Athos sent a loud warning to the Patriarchate, so lets hope things like that don't happen again.
I agree that the Ecumenical Movement should be addressed by all the Orthodox. But as scandalous as it all seems, there will be no "Florentine Union" anytime soon. The Pope is clinging to his primacy and the Orthodox will never affirm it. Patriarch Bartholomew is not taking away your Orthodoxy and he has no desire to make us like other religions. And just because you "feel" the Patriarch should be expelled from the Church of Christ, doesn't mean your feelings are right. The Holy Fathers who formulated the Canons would not agree with you.
John,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your concerns, and I too care about fostering unity - both jurisdictionally and in spirit. However, I have to side with Metropolitan JONAH on this one, both because I think it is both proper Orthodox ecclesiology, and much more practical.
I would like to dissuade you first from treating a sermon like a lecture, agenda, plan, or mandate. It was a Pan-Orthodox sermon at a Pan-Orthodox vespers. He said what was appropriate and helpful to the audience there; had more people like you have been there, I'm sure he would have spent more time arguing persuasively.
I would also like to dissuade everyone from making a united American Orthodox Church an issue of "we got here first". It's repulsive and unhealthy. Met. JONAH made mention of it in order as an example of who we are, our history, and what our situation is at presence. It's part (and a valid one I think) of his argument that we need to be respected for who we are, which entails those in places like the Phanar knowing who were are. I get the impression that either they don't know what's going on in this continent, or they don't care - either of which is a good reason for such people not to be our leader.
Why is the OCA uncanonical? Because the EP doesn't recognize it? Great, then even if I accept your argument he should recognize it. There is no reason for him to get involved over here. (Note that this does not mean that he relinquishes his primacy of honor.) Such involvement smacks mightily of papacy.
Why is Constantinople in the position of primacy of honor? Because Rome fell. And why was Rome given such a place? According to Canon 28 in the fifth century it was not for reasons of theological headship but because it was the seat of the Emperor and Senate.
Canons are not the infallible rules that dictate what makes something valid or not. They are themselves a product of revelation by the Infallible Head of the Church: Christ. Our job is to faithful to Him.
Met. JONAH points out at a lecture given at St. Vladimir's Seminary that there is no such thing as a diaspora of Christians. Diaspora is essentially an ethnic term. I am indigenous to America, I am not in diaspora. My Christianity does not threaten that.
All that has to happen to avoid schism is for the EP to realize that we have enough capable Orthodox in this country to be autocephalous. The OCA, and the Self-Ruled Antiochian Archdiocese have more than proved that over that past 39 years. Us American Orthodox aren't causing schism, we just praying in our parishes, loving our bishops, and preaching the Gospel. Many of us have (thanks be to God) never had to read and study the Canons. To have a bishop oversees question the legitimacy of these Christians' standing, and that of their bishops is schismatic and destructive.
The EP is insisting on coming in and running a party he is late to. He is welcome to come, we'll be glad to have him; but whether or likes it or not, he is a guest.
Jesse,
ReplyDeleteI respect your allegiance to your Metropolitan and jurisdiction, but if you really cared about fostering unity, you would be protesting your Metropolitan for being a proponent of division within American Orthodoxy by fostering misinformation to his flock and the masses and trying to stir rebellion against the ancient Patriarchates. You may think his ecclesiastical model is more proper and practical than that which is prescribed by the Holy Fathers of the Church, but I doubt you can back your claim. I also highly doubt that Metropolitan Jonah would have tailored his sermon more towards people like me if more people like me were there. You seem to forget this was a "Pan-Orthodox" Vespers and he knew he was making a public statment to which he gave his blessing for its distribution on the interenet as a reply to what Fr. Elpidophoros said at Holy Cross Theological School. Plus, I am familiar with some of the writings of the Metropolitan and have heard other lectures so I am very familiar with his more "persuasive" arguments. As far as the "we got here first" problem you mentioned, this is an issue brought up by the OCA to justify their legitimate claim of autocephaly in this country, which is rejected not only by the Ecumenical Patriarchate but by all the ancient Patriarchates and most of the autocephalous churches as well. Metropolitan Jonah should be grateful that though the OCA is not recognized by the ancient Sees, he is still allowed his participation in SCOBA and is by economia in communion with the rest of the Body of Christ out of respect for the Moscow Patriarchate. But how can the OCA get any respect when it has an ungrateful hierarch trying to start a revolution against the tradition of the Church? How can we respect an organization that falsifies history to justify its claims? He is making the situation very difficult. You accuse the Ecumenical Patriarchate of being papist, when its your own Metropolitan that is trying to set innovations to govern the Orthodox people of America. If you don't like Canon 28 of Chalcedon, then that is your perogative. But you shouldn't, as your Metropolitan shouldn't, impose your likes and dislikes on the rest of the Body of Christ when no other Synod has repealed of altered the canonical boundaries of the Ecumenical Patriarchate which includes the diaspora just as it always has. And yes, we are a diaspora. I am and you are. Your Metropolitan doesn't like the term because he is relishing in his uncanonical autocephaly, but it's true. And just so you know, I was born in America and have lived here all my life. Your comment seems to indicate that I am disconnected from what is happening in American Orthodoxy. I am not disconnected, and neither is the Greek Archdiocese nor the Ecumenical Patriarchate. What is most important is that we don't disconnect ourselves from the holy traditions of our Church which are time-tested and God-given to maintain unity among the Orthodox. This is the only proper and practical way.
John,
ReplyDeletePlease forgive me if anything I said was insulting to you - I certainly did not mean to sound like I was questioning your citizenship or alligence to America. But I do wonder why you aren't seeing how the EP's claims on America harm, hurt, and distract the pious Orthodox of this continent.
What are we (all Orthodox on this continent) lacking that the EP can give us? At best I see you arguing for some sort of forensic validity; and if that's the case than he can take care of it with a swipe of a pen. So even if I concede your argument, I still don't see how the EP's guiding hand over America will clear up any pressing issue or address this country's spiritual needs. Rather I see it frustrating and insulting (unintentionally to be sure) the hard work of generations of pious Christians and putting up a gigantic roadblock to inquirers.
And I think the theological ramifications could be even more dangerous.
Church teaching is clear that the fullness of the Church is the local Church celebrating the Eucharist around their bishop. If I though it took more than that, I would be Roman Catholic. They were once the "first among equals", right?
Sure we need visible expressions of our unity: and the EP is one such expression. So are concelebrations, Ecumenical Councils, Ecumenical Synods, common Saints, and common Creeds. Fundamentally, however "legitimacy" comes from Christ who is the Person in charge of the Church. The bishop, and the EP as the first bishop the world looks to, is an icon of Christ.
If this is threatened (as the EP, and the recent decision of the synod of Antioch are doing) then the Orthodox understanding of what it means to be the Church is at stake. Christ will make sure the correct understanding will prevail, but we should avoid thwarting it... and this is my encouragement to the EP.
I am afraid you miss my point about Canon 28: it does not give the EP spiritual authority but grants its primacy based on non-religious political factors. These factors have changed, first because Rome split, and now because Constantinople is no longer the central seat of the Emperor and Senate. That being said, I have no problem with the EP maintaining his primacy of honor - just with anyone wielding it as if it hard spiritual weight it does not actually have.
Restating that we are in diaspora does not address Met. JONAH's argument which many find compelling.
It is curious to me that you can say that Met. JONAH is "relishing in his uncanonical autocephaly", "a proponent of division ", "trying to stir rebellion against the ancient Patriarchates", and that he is an "ungrateful hierarch trying to start a revolution against the tradition of the Church". If you are right, he is wrong: there's no need to insult the man. I knew him before he was a bishop, and still do as Metropolitan, and he is at the very least trying to be a servant of God. If you've heard his lectures, you know that he considers himself a "head-slave"; and I sincerely believe he lives that way.
I disagree with the EP (and other bishops)but I try to refrain from questioning their motives - especially in public. Please do the same.
The road to Orthodoxy was a hard one for me - and remains difficult in many of my close relationships. I came here for Christianity - to be fed by Christ and to be joined to His Body - and this sort of squabbling makes my life much harder. I didn't come to be joined to Constantinople, Moscow, or the OCA. I came to be joined to Christ. There are tons more like me who are dying without the Church, and they can't see Christ's Church because of all the "foreign stuff" gets in the way. The Church isn't foreign, though it may be strange at first. These people can't see the Church because people keep arguing about how the other person isn't in line with the Canons. They can't see in our worship the same worship that eternally surrounds God, because too often there are belligerent people arguing about ethnic issues and which tradition must one write an icon in order for it to be valid. That's not the tradition they need to see - what they need to see is at their local parish, and Met. JONAH wants to see that happen by serving the dioceses, not by running them.
(For what it's worth: I did not come into the Church through the OCA.)
Jesse, I apologize if I came off as insulted. I'm not of course. I consider this just a dialogue. Just as much as you claim the Ecumenical Patriarchate' Synodal claims harm, hurt, and distract the pious Orthodox of this America, even more so I claim the innovations Metropolitan Jonah proposes harm, hurt, and distract the pious Orthodox of America. If you are too sensitive to discuss this issue or if it affects your spiritual walk with Christ, then you should not get involved in it and leave it to those more mature in the Faith for whom it doesn't affect. I appreciate you came into Orthodoxy to be part of the Body of Christ, and if these very important matters distract you then you should focus on something else. I married a convert to the faith, so I understand the struggles first-hand. This is obviously an issue beyond your understanding from the questions you ask and it would take a long response to get to the heart of the issues. They are certainly not petty issues as you try to sweep them under the rug to be.
ReplyDeleteWhat can the Ecumenical Patriarch offer? Read Fr. Elpidophoros' lecture again. It's all there. Why do you want me to repeat it? These are all things that are deperately needed in America.
Your understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology is also very lacking. Of course, the fullness of the Church is the local Church. However, there are still a hierarchy among the clergy. Your local priest acts as a representative of your Metropolitan Your Metropolitan is a representative of the Archbishop. Your Archbishop is a representative of your Patriarch. At least this is how it works in the GOA among others. The canons exist to create order and uniformity in the Church. If this model makes you want to join the Catholics because it sounds so similar, then maybe you converted for the wrong reasons (I'm not implying you did however). The difference between the Orthodox and the Ctholics regarding hierarchy isn't necessarily the model or structure, but the claims of the papacy itself as not the "first among equals" but the "supreme pontiff", that is, his primacy. The Ecumenical Patriarch has never made such a claim, which makes your accusations of him being a "Pope wannabe" as well as your Metropolitans extremely disrespectful, harmful, vitriolic and offensive. Instead your trying to make it sound as if we under the Ecumenical Patriarch don't understand that the head of the Church is Christ. We aren't a bunch of ego-centred retards as you make us out to be. The EP wants what is best for the Body of Christ and I agree with his stance. The only one encouraging division is Metropolitan Jonah and like-minded hierarchs. Not the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
And as far as Canon 28 is concerned, you not only misread the canon but you misunderstand how the Church has always understood it and practiced it. Every autocephaolous church has its boundaries. This gives the boundaries of the Patriarch of Constantinople. After explaining the boundaries, it also goes on to explain who is responsible for ordaining bishops outside those boundaries and outside the boundaries of other Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches. It is very clear that only the Patriarch of Constantinople has the authority to ordain bishops outside the boundaries, that is, the so-called diaspora which you meaninglessly find so offensive. Other canons also grant only the Patriarch of Constantinople the sole authority to settle disputes among hierarchs outside his jurisdiction if it is necessary to do so. These are the rules of the Church you joined. If you don't like them, then keep your personal tastes to yourself. There has been no authoritative change to these canons. If there is, I will follow. You can do whatever you want. But we can't change the rules for everybody as we seem fit, not even Metropolitan Jonah or Metropolitan Phillip.
Allow me to quote from a lecture of Metropolitan Methodios of Boston from last week when he celebrated his name day at Holy Cross Theological School:
"I confess that I have grown weary with individuals pontificating about the plight Orthodoxy “in this country, in this time,” wringing their hands about the absence of “administrative unity of our indigenous Church in America.” Who is to blame? The finger of responsibility is always pointed at the “Greeks” i.e. the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
"The individuals making such preposterous claims are the very ones who ignore and violate basic tenets of Orthodox Ecclesiology and Canon Law by placing Bishops in cities where there is already a canonical Orthodox Bishop. They dispute the Primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the world of Orthodoxy (outside the boundaries of the other Patriarchates and Autocephalous churches). They ignore decisions made in Geneva in the 1990s by representatives of all Orthodox Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches.
"We who are in positions of leadership must be very careful each time we speak publicly. The content of our remarks must be accurate and responsible. Our words – written and uttered – must, to the best of our ability, edify our readers and those who congregate to hear us preach the Word of God.
"I recently viewed on the internet a “sermon” delivered by an Orthodox Hierarch. References were made to an upcoming meeting in Cyprus. He was referring to the meeting of representatives of all Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches who will gather to discuss issues of vital importance to Orthodoxy in preparation for the convening of the Great and Holy Synod. Asserting that the meeting was convened to discuss “singular control of the so-called Diaspora by the Ecumenical Patriarchate” is nothing less than an insult to the integrity not only of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but all Mother Churches! My brother Metropolitan prejudges the outcome of discussions that have not even taken place. I am appalled how a Hierarch could permit himself to publicly state --- in a sermon, mind you --- “I would submit that if we wanted a Pope, we’d be under the real one.” While accusing others, the preacher sadly proved that it is he --- and not the heads of our Mother Churches --- that has “complete ignorance and misperceptions” about Orthodoxy in America.
"May the benevolent Lord heal these latest wounds which have been inflicted upon the body of His Holy Orthodox Church. May the unwaning Light of His glorious Resurrection illumine our hearts with the pure light of His divine knowledge, and open the eyes of our minds to think and to act in ways that are pleasing to Him."
John,
ReplyDeleteOnce more I apologize if I came across like I though "you guys" were a bunch of "ego-centric retards". That is not the spirit in which I am writing.
Your description of "representational" ecclesiology is not what I find in Church Father (like St. Ignatius) or in scripture. I am not claiming that representational ordering does happen, doesn't have a long tradition, and isn't good: just that it's practical and not spiritually mandated. Likewise, such representaionalism happens in concordance with synodality.
And yes, I am glad that more mature and knowledgeable Christians have the positions of power in this discussion: the EP being among them.
I am trying to see how crying out: "Here's what we are, what we've been doing, thanks but no thanks for trying to run us" is insulting or vitriolic.
I am glad the Canons exist for the reason you claim, they guide us to order. They are not the source of validity. That we have an un-Canonical situation with multiple bishops in the same city is very bad, but it does not make those parishes in those cities invalid, or nullify any of our Eucharist.
When you say that every autocephalous Church has its boundaries, you make it sound like missionary activities belongs exclusively to the EP. Is this right?
If this is so, he's not so much functioning as "first among equals" concilliarly, but as the universal missionary to the world. I don't see that being an accurate description of any bishopric in the early Church, or that being a practical way to evangelize.
I've read Fr. Elpidophoros' lecture: and I don't find his reasons compelling. I really mean this when I say: tell what is compelling. Not because I want to debate, but because I want to care about the right thing, and maybe you can help me do that. I know others who missed that in the speech too, so perhaps a little elucidation is in order.
Autocephalous churches can send out missions and expand their boundaries, but they can't grant autocephaly without consent of the whole Church. The Russian Empire had a mission within its own Empire (Alaska), but their were already churches established in America under the Ecumenical Patriarchate before Russia expanded into America.
ReplyDeleteEcclesiology in Orthodoxy has a 2000 year old tradition. We don't limit our ecclesiology to the Apostolic Fathers. And its absurd to think the Ecumenical Patriarchate contradicts Ignatius.
And if your not compelled by the fact that America needs spiritual growth and unified leadership according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers, then this issue is not for you to tackle.
I am currently attending a church in the OCA. I am very new to the faith, and I find all of this very disheartening. I left Roman Catholicism because of certain Papal decrees. Orthodoxy has very appealing aspects, but the lack of order in the hierarchy leaves me scratching my head. What about the OCA is invalid? Why do they need an O.K. from Constantinople if the Liturgy and the belief system is correct? Isn't that what constitutes Orthodoxy ? If it does, then why don't they just let everyone be. Greeks, Russians, Serbs, whoever. The ethnicity of certain churches doesn't bother me as long as the belief system and the Liturgical practices are correct.
ReplyDeleteKevservative, there is no need to be disheartened. The Ecumenical Patriarchate does not consider the OCA "invalid". There is still unity in the Faith and Liturgical communion. We should not push this beyond what it really is. Yes, there are hierarchical squabbles, but there always has been and always will be (it was even so among the Apostles). We just always pray and do what we can to heal these disputes so that schism or heresy won't divide the Body of Christ. I understand these things are confusing, but as a newborne babe in Orthodoxy it is difficult to swallow the meat of these weighty matters which is why I suggest you stay focused on your growth in Christ rather than ecclesiological disputes. Also, no one is trying to destroy anyone's ethnic identity, neither the OCA nor the Ecumenical Patriarchate, though there is that type of rhetoric going on in the OCA and it is confusing a lot of people like yourself. The important thing now is that your Metropolitan has expressed his regret and sought forgiveness for many of his comments and we are once again going in the right direction. All we can do is pray for our hierarchs. Christ is Risen!
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, thank you for your response. I'm just trying to figure out what the actual role of the Ecumenical Patriarch would be. I have read the sermons and the lectures. I'm just not understanding what sort of decisions he would have the power to institute. My faith in Christ has nothing to do with my questions concerning the hierarchy of the church. If I am to become Orthodox, I want to know everything from Liturgical practices, to the structure of the Church itself. I recently attended my first Pascha last night with my daughter. It was a beautiful service. The fellowship between all Orhthodox is probably the most luring aspect of all to me. I would just like to understand how the hierarchy actually works with so much bickering. Forgive my ignorance, and maybe I am a bit overzealous, but a full understanding of how things work is extremely important to me.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless.
My minority view is that North America should be left alone. As it is, even though the situation be un-canonical in the strict sense. Please, please do not consolidate all jurisdictions into one. American-style "unity" would be to force the lowest-common-denominator of the faith onto a broadly diverse population of the faithful. My family and I, for example, are in a New Calendar jurisdiction, but happily live as very "traditional" Orthodox Christians. If we were to be immured within an "Amalgamated Jurisdiction", I truly fear that we would inhabit an "Orthodox shell", lacking the lifeblood of our faith. We need the basics such as (1) monasticism (as taught by the living traditions of Mt. Athos and continuing/revived Russia, Romania, Serbia, etc., and not as some U.S. invention), (2) ubiquitous, traditional fasting and prayer by monastics, clergy, and laypeople, (3) appropriate clergy apparel (no "dog collars", please), (4) traditional Orthodox liturgical music (the 8 tones, not the "8 tunes"), (5) non-involvement in"ecumenical" activities (no excuses made that we are "merely observing"), and more.
ReplyDeleteSo leave North America alone, conferring the freedom for an individual Orthodox Christian to follow his conscience.
Having written this, nonetheless, I must sidestep and nod agreement with some of what Fr. Seraphim posted about potential relations between the OCA and ROCOR.
I suspect it is difficult for a loyal member of the GOARCH to acknowledge the weaknesses exhibited, cumulatively, by the Ecumenical Patriarchs. Family loyalty is a a virtue, but not when it is blind.
I side solidly with those who affirm that we do NOT live in diaspora. Only clumsy linguistic play asserts that we do. I never emigrated nor immigrated in my life. One just as well might claim that the Orthodox faith "entered diaspora" as soon as the first missionary left the city boundaries of Jerusalem and carried Christianity elsewhere.
May all be resolved peacefully, prayerfully, and according to God's will, NOT according to human political whims.
It's funny how some people want to abandon the tradition of the Church to follow their own concept of what traditional really is. Not only is this a Protestant way of looking at things, but it is a bit unreasonable as well.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. That is why I posted. In America, Orthodoxy is "pick-and-choose", rather than heed tradition as defined by the Church and the Holy Fathers.
ReplyDeleteI think it is important to understand that the model the Ecumenical Patriarchate proposes for America has a firm foundation in the tradition of the Church. For those with a more traditional bent, I like to bring up the example of Mount Athos. Mount Athos is self-governed (autonomous) and part of the Hellenic Republic, but it is also under the direct jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. This is basically the same model that is being proposed for America. Ignorance and fear have created a lot of misunderstanding however. One fear is that the jurisdictions in America will lose their identity (whether it be jurisdictional or ethnic) and be swallowed up into the culture of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This is a rhetorical lie being pushed by people who have other agendas opposed to the tradition of the Church. Again, when one looks to Mount Athos it is observed that there is not only Greek-speaking monasteries, but there is also a Bulgarian, Russian, Serbian and Romanian speaking monasteries that follow their own traditions as well even though they all fall under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. No identity is lost, no languages lost, and there is no authoritarian rule that all the monasteries must do as directed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Ecumenical Patriarchate has gone so far to accomadate the style and traditions of Mount Athos, that it even allows them to use the Old Calendar even though in Constantinople the New Calendar is used. It is this similar open-minded model that is proposed for America and will be discussed in the upcoming Pan-Orthodox Synod.
ReplyDeleteIsa Almisry said:
ReplyDeleteI'd have to spend quite some time going through it all, time I do not have.
For starters, the "Pedalion" seems to know nothing of this novel interpretation of canon 28, an important point as it was written and published just when America was being missionized. So much for the Fathers, Tradition, the Councils, etc. It doesn't support the EP's present interpretation.
I think the best way to cut through this knoted argument is to bring up Georgia, an ancient Patriarchate which DOES recognize the OCA as autocephalous. She was outside the empire, in the "Barbarian Lands." She was even on the border of the Pontic Diocese, one specified in canon 28, and was not autocephalous at the time of Chalcedon. According to the EP's present interpretation, she should have been in Constantinople's jurisdiction. Yet when she received her autocephaly in 486, she received it solely from Antioch, the Patriarch of Antioch ordaining 12 bishops and sending them back to Georgia. To this day, the primate carries the title of Catholicos, the title that Antioch gave its autonomous exarchs (cf. Armenia (where a Syriac/Greek rivalry ended in a blend) and the Assyrians).
6 of the 15 Autocephalous Churches, the overwhelming majority of the Orthodox, recognize the OCA's autocephaly. 4 (Antioch, Serbia, Romanian and Albania) are somewhat neutral, but based on their history can hardly dispute it: Antioch and Serbia's jurisdiction here started from within the Russian Archdiocese (e.g. the consecration of St. Raphael) and the Albanian Church actually started in the same milieux in Boston, under Fan Noli. The existence of their own exarchates shows that they do not believe in the EP's recent interpretation of canon 28. Only the 5 Greek Churches(Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus, CoG) are hostile to the very idea, but since Alexandria, Jerusalem and CoG have had/have exarchates in the New World and Australia, it would seem the EP's interpretation of canon 28 hasn't held water for them as well.
Btw, on Alexandria: evidently EP Meletios didn't believe his own interpretation, as he expanded his jurisdiction to All of Africa in 1934 while he was Pope, without any approval from Constantinople. The date that Chief Secretary Elidophoros gives as 2002, as proof of the power of the EP, only made him look ridiculous in the eyes of us in Alexandria, who know better.
The Pedalion was compiled by St Nikodemos before any Orthodox parishes were established in the United States. Also, it makes no interpretation of canon 28 on this matter since it is clear in what it says, and has only been recently debated by the Russians which St Nikodemos and the prior canonist could not have anticipated. Had St Nikodemos or any other canonist known of what issues America presented for this canon due to the arrogance of the Russian Patriarchate and the OCA in trying to override its clear interpretation and thus render a division in the Church of America and confusion among the faithful, then they would have certainly offered a clearer interpretation. And we know St Nikodemos would have supported the EP's position on this matter, since he writes of the EP: "He is called 'Ecumenical' on account of the fact he has under him a major part of the inhabited earth, and furthermore on account of the zeal and providnce which he exercises in watch over the faith and preserving the traditions and teachings of both the Councils and the Fathers, not only in his own See (or Diocese), but also in all the rest of the Sees (or Dioceses) throughout the length and breadth of the various lands of the earth." This is St Nikodemos' interpretation of "barbarian lands". Besides this canon, we must also consider historical circumstances following the schism with Old Rome. Whereas Old Rome would have had jurisdiction over the West, since the schism all the lands of Old Rome were transferred to New Rome.
ReplyDeleteThe Georgian Orthodox Church is a terrible example to bring up in this debate. Georgia was under the jurisdiction of Antioch since the 320's as were all the lands in between. Thus this boundary was already established prior to the Fourth Ecumenical Synod and was never questioned or overruled. On this account I do not see any validity to your point.
I'm not going to get into a debate over why the OCA is recognized officially by some and not by others, but it is clear that it is only recognized by all out of respect for Russia. By oikonomia the rest of the canonical independent churches also recognize it, and this includes all of the ancient patriarchates.
Also, as far as your claim of hypocrisy on the part of Patrairch Meletios while in Alexandria, it was his predecessor Patriarch Photios (1900-1925) that divided up Africa into 7 districts under his See. Meletios divided it into nine districts and took on the title "all Africa" with the approval of the EP in 2002. As you should know from Church History, the claim is always first made before it is officially approved or rejected. The EP never objected to the Patriarchate of Alexandria's claim, it only took a long time for an offical approval though always did unoffically approve it. In this sense, Meletios did nothing uncanonical in this matter but rather followed proper canonical procedure.
Isa Almisry said:
ReplyDeleteYes, Pope Photios had expanded the patriarchate: after supression by the court of Consantinople and centuries of neglect by asbentee Phanariot landlords, Alexandria had only three bishops, and when one died, the Pope had to send to the Holy Synod in Phanar to elect another. Pope Photios, however, at the start of his pontificate forbade the EP's legate from setting foot in the patriarchate, and so revived the Holy Synod of the Preaching of St. Mark (thus eliminating the need for getting bishps via the EP's synod) in order to tell the EP...well...what the Phanar could do with its "approval." Fortescue leaves a contempoary account, and adds that Pope Photios "it is said speaks Arabic quite well, and is conciliating his disconted subjects."
http://books.google.com/books?id=UPr1ZCxPW6QC&pg=PA286&dq=Lord+Photios#v=onepage&q=Lord%20Photios&f=false
His biased work's value lies in that, published in 1908, it predates the promulgation of the new canon 28: the work recounts the events going on in the Old World Patriarchs while the Americas were being missionized, and it is painfully obvious, they did not know any superjurisdiction of the EP, except that that the Ottoman Sultan gave him. Fortescue's account shows that the revival of the Orthodox canons led to curtailing of the Phanar. It also might give the motive of Joachim III in issuing the 1908 Tomos: the Bulgarian revival and the establishment of the Romanians caused his first retirement and the exposure of his impotence. On his return to power he announced an agenda against "the agression of Russia" (of course, including America at the time) amongst other things (Fortescue summarizes the manifesto on p. 345): he didn't send a copy to Antioch, because he took the fact that the Antiochians were again masters of their own house as "usurpation."
How did Pope Meletius use approval in 2002 to justify actions he took in the 1930s? It seems, like Pope Photios, he did it (as his right as an autocephalous primate) without reference to Constantinople, but as a purely internal matter (P. Meletius was the first to be acknowleged by the King of Egypt, and not the Porte, itself an anachronism at the time P. Photios that oddly survived in the Veiled Protectorate). I had the misfortune of not being in Egypt in 2002, so I do not know what "watershed" event happened that the EP "approved" the title: the Popes Nicholas and Parthenios I know had been using it long before, and did not have the slightest care of Constantinople's opinion of the matter. Now we only have to start consecrating our own chrism descrease the dependence on the Greek government, and elect a native son Pope and Alexandria (which now has more communicants than it has had since Romans) will take her rightful place in the Church.
Yes, I am aware the claim is firt made and officially approved, but you left out "ignore protestations of Phanar." Fortescue shows the routine over and over. Another example would be the restoration of the Bulgarian primate as a patriarch: he simply announced it, and invited the other autocephalous heads to Sofia. The EP protested, but everyone came anyone. And so it stands.
http://books.google.com/books?id=i4pjCJJGzk8C&pg=PA42&dq=Orthodox+autocephaly+patriarch+Sofia+bulgaria#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Isa Almisry further said:(:P)
ReplyDeleteAnd the opposition to the OCA by the Greek Churches: that's not out of respect of ethnic solidarity (phyletism?), and the Greek government's exchequer? And the ancient patriarchate of Georgia recognizes the OCA does by strictness of the canon, not economia, nor does economia have anything to do with the recognition by the most ancient patriarchate of Antioch (there being an veiled reference to the OCA, out of which the Antiochian Archdiocese came, in the constitution Antioch granted to our archdiocese when it was made autonomous).
The patriarchate of Antioch boundaries were established before the fourth council? Why was Antioch contiually trying to restore its rights under canon 6 of Nicea I, taken by canon 8 of Ephesus, over Cyprus until 1700? How was the patriarchate of Jerusalem carved out of Antioch's patriarchate then? How did the iconoclast emperor Leo III (the same, btw, who took Greece and the rest of the Balkans outside Thrace and Southern Italy from iconphile Rome and attached it to Constantinople) take Cilicia from Antioch and give it to Constantinople? Cyprus has the ruling of an Ecumenical Council (at which Antioch did not take part), and Jerusalem an Ecumenical Council approving a truce with Antioch, but ECCLESIASTICAL authority does Constantinople have for keeping sees that a heretical emperor had snatched?
Well good, that the jurisdction of Antioch and ALL THE EAST has been estalished over all the lands: the EP can get out of Dubai then, for instance. I know that the late EP Demetrius I of blessed memory served his priesthood in Tehran. I wasn't aware he was attached to the Patriarch of Antioch. Btw, the crow has to fly from Antioch's Diocese of the East over the Pontic Diocese to get to Georgia (over Cappadocia to be precise: btw, any idea why the Patriarch of Romania is ex officio locum tenens, or claims to be, of Caesarea in Cappadocia?)
And as if that wasn't enough Isa Almisry went on:
ReplyDeleteWhat the Pedalion says on explaining canon 28 is this:
"Since at this Fourth Council c. III of the Second Council was read, which decrees that the Bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy priorities of honor with the Bishop of Rome, seeing that it is New Rome, therefore the fathers of this Council too, by means of their present Canon, renew and confirm the said Canon, and they decree and vote the same things as regards the priorities of the same city of Constantinople which is also known as New Rome. For, they say, just as the Fathers bestowed privileges upon the throne of Old Rome on account of the fact that it was the capital of an empire, and were fully justified in doing so, owing, that is to say, to his being first in point of order among the rest of the Patriarchs. In exactly the same way and motivated by exactly the same object and aim, the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved bishops of the second Council have bestowed exactly the same and equal privileges of honor also upon the most holy throne of New Rome[112] — of Constantinople, that is to say — deeming it quite reasonable that this city, in view of the fact that it has been honored by being made the seat of an empire and of a senate, in a similar manner as has also (old) Rome, ought to enjoy the same and equal privileges in a similar manner as has also (old) Rome, and to be magnified herself also in exactly the same way as the latter is in connection with ecclesiastical matters, with the sole difference that old Rome is to be first in order, while new Rome is to be second in order. In addition to these things we decree and vote that only the Metropolitans (but not also the Bishops, that is to say, that are subject to the Metropolitans; for each of these is ordained by his own Metropolitan together with the bishops of the province, just as the divine Canons prescribe, especially c. VI of the First) shall be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of Constantinople. Not only are the Metropolitans of the said dioceses to be ordained by him, but indeed also the bishops located in barbarian regions that border on the said dioceses, as, for instance, those called Alani are adjacent to and flank the diocese of Pontus, while the Russians border on that of Thrace. Nevertheless, the said Metropolitans are not to be ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople just as he pleases and decides, but he must take the votes of the Synod under him into consideration as reported to him in accordance with established custom, and then ordain those men on whom the voters have agreed, either unanimously or as a majority."
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/_P1W.HTM
And finally Isa Almisry concluded:
ReplyDeleteConstantinople no longer has an emperor, an empire or a senate. It is no longer the capital of anything. Let's live in the present. And America is not on the border of Constantinople's patriarchate. No where near. I'll posted elsewhere on orthdooxchristianity.net on the "Holy Cross Faculty Statement [I say misstatement] on the Ecumenical Patriarchate" on the comments on canon 28 in the Pedalion: suffice it here to say that America's did (and do) border on the territory of the Russian patriarchate, and the time of the missionizing of America and the establishment of its hierarchy was contemporaneous to, and on the heels of, the Pedalion's publication (in 1800, i.e. after the establishment of the American bishoprick) and acceptance as the definitive commentary for the EP.
The Russians had already established parishes in Alaska in 1794 and a diocese in 1799 (yes, facts the GOA offically ignores), and a mission down in CA from 1812, which led to the American Diocese's Cathedral in 1870, founded with with the Greek community and their Consul. The latter's existence, in flagrant violation of canon 8 of Ephesus (previously cited by me in error as 6) was ignored by the 1922 GOANSA charter, although Arch. Meletios had himself been in SF (and split the Greek community itself into two warring factions).
And to recap, the territory of Orthodox Rome was transferred to Constantinople by a heretical emperor. Has an Ecumenical Council (the last not yet being held) approved that?
Isa, your arguments are full of logical fallacies with an emphasis on special pleading. And your special pleading is creating a history that does not exist. I gave you some facts to consider and you ignore them to present your own "facts" and draw far fetched conclusions. Your obviously not open to discussion, so I wont even attempt to proceed with this. You would have been wiser to focus on just one issue if you wanted to discuss something.
ReplyDeleteIsa Almisry replied:
ReplyDeleteMy facts can be verified, my argument laid out, plenty of links provided: your readers can judge for themselves. Caveat lector.
Isa, yes you provided a few facts, misconstrued a false conclusion, and totally avoided the facts I presented as well as my one and only question to you. The only thing presented was your agenda. If you have something to say, do it on your own blog.
ReplyDeleteDoes the Ecumenical Patriarch propose accepting the dual-calendar system of the OCA? For Russian Orthodox, Serbs and others the Old Calendar is non-negotiable.
ReplyDeleteThe Russian Church through ROCOR worldwide, the MP on a smaller scale and the OCA in the States has thousands of converts, scores of priests, deacons, subdeacons and readers, monastics and all of them welcomed, able to serve in English etc. The EP/Greek Church still seems very focused on Hellenism and has lacked the missionary fruits of the Russian diaspora.