Because this site isn’t about what I’m in favor of or which partisan position one should take (I said what I did to provide context for my historical observations). It’s about discussing Orthodox Church history. Please make sure you keep your comments on-topic, or else they won’t make it through moderation.

I victim of circumstances beyond my control. Since circumstances have changed somewhat, depending on what happens in the EA and Met. Jonah apprisal of it, I’ll reassess.

“You obviously believe that the OCA is a fully legitimate autocephalous Church,”

Yes, THE legitimate autocephalous Church of North America.

“and that the other jurisdictions are uncanonically encroaching upon its territory.”

Yes again.

“How, then, can you justify communing in one of those “uncanonical” parishes?”

Simple. They are in the OCA’s diptychs. When ROCOR wasn’t, I didn’t, except when I was in Jerusalem. When in Rome…

“How can you even consider the Antiochians, Greeks, and even ROCOR to be Orthodox, since they do not recognize the territorial exclusivity of the OCA? Shouldn’t your position be “OCA only”?”

Since all four of the OCA’s primates and their Holy Synods have not taken that position, I cannot see how I would be justified, at least at present, to do so. They make the decisions of economia or akrevia, not I.

I’m not sure how that can be supported by history, except for Churches which break off from their Mother Church, in which case it would be a case of appeal over the head of the Mother Church. Autocephlous Churches have ever been interested in aggrandizement. I can’t think of a single example of one breaking itself up, except for Russia and the OCA and perhaps Ohrid and Serbia. Romania was formed out of at least five jurisdictions and Serbia formed about as many. That answers your question “what prevents Antioch from granting autocephaly to the Archdiocese of Beirut, and the Archdiocese of Mount Lebanon, and the Archdiocese of Baalbek?” There was talk, which went nowhere, of that when Lebanon gained its independence.

Nothing, to judge from the history of Ecumenical Councils or Pan-Orthodox ones, would be gained from applying the “OCA principle,” as they do not operate like the US Senate. What would invite chaos would be, for instance, giving Cyprus veto power over Ukraine’s autocephaly. “How is the principle of conciliarity maintained, and how is ecclesiastical anarchy…avoided?” According to the principle of Apostolic Canon34: an autocephalous Holy Synod can determine for itself whether to divide itself. Treating Moscow as if it speaks for the OCA, when Moscow and the OCA are agreed that it does not, makes little sense. Only in cases of the Metropolia declaring autonomy/autocephaly or ROCOR claiming to be the Russian Church in exile and Moscow illegitimate would/should the other Churches think of invoking conciliarity. As it was, the Moscow Patriarchate solved both situations as an internal affair.

I”m on Antioch’s team here, and my home team is Alexandria. I’ve never been to Russia, one of the few Orthodox Churches I have never been to (Georgia, Cyprus and Albania are the others). I gave an example for the GOA.

“(And are those concerns still relevant 40 years later?)”

I don’t think so, but then I’m not involved.

“You can’t expect absolute canonical strictness from everyone else and not from your own favored bunch.”

If that were true, I would have signed up with Alexandria here, before the jurisdiction was closed.

“The truth is that pastoral concerns in attempting to come to grips with an overwhelming flood of immigration are what ruled the foundations of Orthodoxy in America as we now have it.”

We were talking about 1970, not 1900. At the time of the Tomos, immigration among the Russian Orthodox was negligible. It was dealing with trying to put the pieces together, starting with what was easy. And even that was hard.

“It’s all quite messy and uncanonical.”

The beginnings of autocephaly usually are. At least in the case of the OCA it resembled driving the kid to college and getting them set up. Usually it is like trying to locate a run a away teenager.

“As now conceived” may be correct, but then the same could be said the hierarchy in general. You are correct on your first point: that would be like leaving babes out to exposure. But there comes a time when treating a child as a child becomes obscene: as we say in Egypt “raise you son and then treat him as a brother.” Of course, “Honor your Father and your Mother” still applies (our priest in fact says the commandment is really for adults, as parents are usually able to extract respect from their minor children, power of the purse (;)).

Autocephaly is a constitutent part of Apostolic ecclesiology, hence the coniciliar nature and the circle of Apostles on the icon of Pentacost. How that is exercised differs as the needs differ. I would prefer, for instance, an autocephalous Church for Canada, another for the US, and another for Mexico/Latin America. I don’t think that is sustainable, though.

However, an autocephalous Church of North America is. Next week over 60 bishops will meet. Other than Russia or Greece, that is comparable or far more than the Holy Synod of any other autocephalous Church. That alone distinguishes the North American EA from all others. But another is the fact of an autocephalous member. Whether political independence determines ecclesiastical independence is moot: one already exists here.

The Chambesy protocols call for an executive committee composed of the primates of every jurisdiction. As of yet, according to those close to Met. Jonah, he has not been officially invited to sit on it, nor informed of its formation. Such things, reminiscent of the Polish bishops in LA, does not bode well.

The truth is that pastoral concerns in attempting to come to grips with an overwhelming flood of immigration are what ruled the foundations of Orthodoxy in America as we now have it. It’s all quite messy and uncanonical.

Simple: pastoral concerns.

At the time of the Tomos, the trauma of the Bolshevik Revolution was still fresh, prolonged by lengthy legal battles: St. Nicholas Cathedral, for instance, switched hands several times and only ended with Moscow in the 50′s, when the US Supreme Court handed it over by striking the New York laws passed in favor of the Metropolia/OCA. So you had those fresh wounds from “taking sides,” in particular perhaps among those who saw themselves as preserving loyalty to Moscow during the McCarthy era (the NY laws were passed against such loyalty). On top of that, you had the dynamic of ROCOR relocating to the US, and trying to draw the Metropolia and the Patriarchal parishes in its orbit, and seen by Moscow as an uncanonical organization. It would seem that the terms of the Tomos were made to act as transition, with ultimate integration (in their good time) into the OCA. Some did join the OCA, some jumped ship for ROCOR. I wonder if the designers of the Tomos thought the Patriarchal parishes would last 40 years as an institution. It would be nice if they created a Russian diocese like the OCA has for the Albanians and Romanians.

Btw, similar concerns were at play with the integration of the Old Calendar Greeks and Athonite Churches/Monasteries into GOA. Such concerns, in contrast, played no part in the formation of the Jerusalemite/Jordanian/Palestinian vicarate here.

Of course, the Tomos of Autocephaly includes the Patriarchal Parishes as part of its terms, and as such do not have much canonical challenge, like stavropagal institutions or metochia. The terms specify that they may remain with Moscow, but envision them joining the OCA (and they are barred from canonical release to any body but the OCA). It is not a unique situation (Crete and the New Lands between CoG and Constantinople; the Serbian diocese of Timisoara in Romania, etc.), althought the commemoration both Patriarch Kyril and Met. Jonah in the patriarchal parishes may be unique (and intended to reaffirm the Tomos). Such a device I think should be applied (to facilitate and releave pressure in) autocephaly of Ukraine (as a Patriarchate).

The GOA is in a different situation, as its founding as an archdiocese was done in oppostion to the OCA (though it incorporated elements, e.g. the original Greek parishes of SF, Chicago, Seattle, New Orleans, etc. that were not so founded). Hence the more damaging implications of recognizing the OCA’s autocephaly. If the two joined, however, the issue would be mooted.

“For that matter, how the Moscow Patriarchate can recognize the OCA’s autocephaly and yet maintain many parishes in the US is quite beyond me. But we do not seem to live in times when the canons are followed too closely or when anyone agrees on what they’re supposed to mean.”

I agree with you completely. I’ve never understood why there are 25 or 30 (?) or so Russian Patriarchal parishes in the USA when the Moscow Patriarchate recognizes the OCA’s autocephaly. It makes no sense to me. I can understand maybe one “representation church,” but that’s it. I’ve never met anyone who has had an explanation for the existence of the many Russian patriarchal parishes in America.

For ROCOR parishes, I do understand (since they historically did not consider the OCA legitimate.

The EP’s position with respect to the OCA is at least consistent with it maintaining its own large archdiocese in America. The MP’s position of recognizing the OCA’s autocephaly yet also maintaining its own collection of American churches makes no sense.

If anyone can explain this, it would be appreciated.

Thank you
In Christ,
Gregg

For that matter, how the Moscow Patriarchate can recognize the OCA’s autocephaly and yet maintain many parishes in the US is quite beyond me. But we do not seem to live in times when the canons are followed too closely or when anyone agrees on what they’re supposed to mean.

For the record, and for your own context: I am personally in favor of a single, administratively united Orthodox church in the United States, organized along purely geographic lines, which is administratively independent. I believe that this is consistent with our whole theological and canonical tradition.

What I am attempting to convey is that unity and geography are necessary elements (i.e., that there should be no overlapping bishoprics), but national independence is not (i.e., that every nation-state should have its own church). If independence along sovereign national boundaries were a necessary element in our canonical tradition, then as soon as the Church moves into a new nation-state, there would have to be immediate autocephaly. That in pretty much every case in history there is not an immediate emergence of autocephaly indicates that it is not a necessary ecclesiological condition. If it were, then we must assume that most of our missionary saints were, in fact, heretics, because they answered to “foreign” hierarchies. It also means that the MP is heretical for claiming Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, China, Korea, and Japan as its territory; the EP for claiming parts of Greece; Antioch for claiming Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait (just which of those states is it supposed to be sticking to?); Jerusalem for claiming Jordan, etc., etc., ad nauseam. And these aren’t even the “diaspora”!

You seem to believe that making this historical observation constitutes a bias in favor of papism/ultramontanism centered in Constantinople. Nothing could be further from the truth. You also seem to believe that making this observation constitutes favoring the unlimited territorial claims currently being made either explicitly or implicitly by all of the churches which are operating outside their traditional canonical territory—Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and even the OCA (which has parishes in Mexico and Australia(!)). Again, nothing could be further from the truth.

Now having, I hope, put to bed your sneaking suspicion that I am an Ultramontanist spy for the Phanar, I will restate: Autocephaly as it is now conceived is a historical-canonical development, not a part of our dogmatic tradition from the Apostles. All I mean by that is what’s in Fr. John Erickson’s essay.

http://tiny.cc/zg84p

It just makes sense, and is consistent with the spirit of the canons, that the existing Churches should have a say when a new Church is granted autocephaly. Otherwise — and this is not a rhetorical question, but a sincere one — how is the principle of conciliarity maintained, and how is ecclesiastical anarchy (such as my example above) avoided?

First, I don’t know what you mean about “please take that spat elsewhere”…i was simply pointing out the contrast between this idea of allegiance to far away patriarchates and Orthodox tradition. I’d think that’s obvious…perhaps not.

Second, with regard to your comments:

*****************************************

“The idea that autocephaly necessarily must match sovereign national boundaries does not square with the historical witness for two reasons:

First, the modern nation-state is just that—modern. It’s only a relatively recent phenomenon.

Second, there have been and continue to be a number of autocephalous churches which are multi-national in character. One need only think of the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Romania, and the Czech Lands and Slovaka (sic)—in short, the majority of modern Orthodox churches. All of those churches include lands situated in multiple sovereign states.”

*****************************************

I would take issue with these comments because of the bias they betray and which contributes, in my opinion, to many of the current problems.

To begin, let me go back to your first comment about “historical witness,” because I think it’s an important one…and one which Orthodox Christians in America may have the toughest time understanding.

To those of us growing up in America, in our ethnic “Orthodox ghettoes,” it may be hard to understand…given our hyphenated-American orientation (ie Greek-American, Arab-American, Russian-American etc). The Church of the first 15 centuries was simply not organized this way. Territorial boundaries were the norm…from which we get the ancient (original) patriarchates Rome, Antioch, Alexandria – being the regional capitals of the empires and capitals of dioceses…followed later by C’nople and Jerusalem (really more of an honorific). As a matter of fact, it is quite obvious from the early writings that the empire saw the synergy between the strategoi (military governor) of those regions, and the bishop/patriarch as a stabilizing factor. In any case, the point is, these patriarchates were established upon a geographic territory which coincided with the secular boundaries. The fact that they were multicultural (or not) was irrelevant. The entire empire was multicultural par excellence (very similar to the USA today by the way).

Later, as I’m sure you know, the boundaries of those original Sees were adjusted to reflect political realities of the secular boundaries, Illyria and Greece being transferred to the East (conforming with the boundaries of the Eastern Empire), Armenia/Georgia becoming Catholicoi (ie outside the empire).

Still later, as the Slavic kingdoms arose, and were outside the empire, those nations were granted autocephaly..as were Trebizond and Ravenna as mentioned above.

Most interesting to me – and instructive I think – as the Ottomans conquered the Balkans, those autocephalous areas were forcibly re-incorporated back into the EP (which then attempted a Hellenization of the regions interestingly)…until the independence of those regions in the 19th century. The letters from those Greek prelates, assigned to the Bulgarian/Serbian dioceses make for fascinating reading…it was sheer racism…see Obolensky’s Book “The Byzantine Commonwealth”.

The establishment of the various Balkan churches of course followed their final independence from the Ottomans.

All of the above are examples of ecclesial boundaries following the secular ones. So I am at a loss to understand the basis upon which you state, “The idea that autocephaly necessarily must match sovereign national boundaries does not square with the historical witness for two reasons…” The opposite would seem to be the case.

BTW, for more information I would refer you to an essay presented at the International Congress of Canon Law, Budapest, 2-7 September 2001, by Metropolitan Panteleimon entitled “Territorial Jurisdiction According to Orthodox Canon Law.
The Phenomenon of Ethnophyletism in Recent Years”. While I would not agree with His Eminence’s conclusions, he lays out the territorial case convincingly. This is available online at Myriobiblos, Electronic Library of the Church of Greece.

Please do not misunderstand any of my comments…I am not for innovating, Protestantizing, Anglicizing the ancient faith. I am, on the other hand, for re-discovering and returning to the original Orthodox practices, many of which I view to have been bastardized during the periods of Ottoman and then communist oppression of the last 500 years. Ironically, I believe many of these practices of the Church of the First 15 centuries, conciliarity, transparency, accountability. would be completely consistent with modern America.

Let me be clear: Frankly, I think our Church Fathers were organizational geniuses. They setup a system which any American businessman instantly recognizes as a geographic franchise system.

There were plenty of good reasons for this, all of which have to do with maintaining the integrity of the faith.. Local control, by locally elected bishops, leads to credibility, authority, consistent application of the canons, legitimacy etc….all issues which the jurisdictions are wrestling with in America.

At the bottom of all of this – and probably many of the jurisdictional arguments in America and elsewhere – is a move AWAY from the concept of “locally elected bishops, sitting in synod.” Think of the problems adherence to this simple concept could have avoided – 1.) the dismissal of Abp Iakovos, 2.) the “election” of Abp Spyridon in the GOA, 3.) the “charter” issue in the GOA, 4.) the recent AOCA problems…just to name a very very few here in America alone.

In sum, this whole idea of “globe straddling” patriarchates is really not an Orthodox one. Whether it is the pretentions of the EP, the claims of the Moscow patriarchate, or the recent comments by the Romanian patriarch – they are all ridiculous from an Orthodox governance point of view…historically there is NO basis for them – and we must not be bashful about saying so. To do so is not rebellious..it is being true to our Orthodox tradition.

To me, the history argues emphatically for a couple of things 1.) The Local Church is clearly the foundation of Orthodox governance….not allegiance to some far away patriarchate – “locally elected bishops, sitting in synod” is the norm, 2.) as stated above, ecclesial boundaries following the secular ones and 3.) ethnicity is NOT a factor in determining the boundaries of the local churches…like it or not, secular boundaries are the basis of the ecclesial ones.

BTW – the history also argues conclusively, in my opinion, a much more dynamic (ie changing or flexible) approach to those same ecclesial boundaries than we have been taught to believe was possible – or than you seem to be comfortable with. Although we may all have issues with Met. Philip, one of the accurate statements he ever made was “Orthodoxy was not meant to be fossilized in the 10th century.” As a Byzantine, i.e. a Greek from Asia Minor, I always took offense to that statement, since the 10th century Byzantines were significantly more flexible than the current patriarchates are.

I hope this (at times incoherent) tome helped to at least explain the point of view.

Best Regards,
Dean

PS I’m very familiar with John’s essay…he is a good friend and I’m jealous of his current residence.

I like reading your comments (as I also enjoy your podcasts… specifically “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy” and now “Roads from Emmaus.” As an aside, your “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy” podcasts have sparked lot of interesting conversations between me and my Byzantine Catholic girlfriend….)

Anyway, I don’t really understand this comment: “Aside from all that, however, you take it as a given that ‘an autocephalous Church already exists,’ but this is precisely one of the points up for debate.”

The fact that the OCA’s autocephaly is not recognized by all the Orthodox churches doesn’t mean a whole lot, does it? Many autocephalous churches went through a period of non-recognition before they became universally acknowledged — sometimes for hundreds of years. This really doesn’t bother many (if anyone) in the OCA, as far as I’m aware.

The issue of whether the EP alone can grant autocephaly is a different issue altogether and has been addressed a lot already. There is obviously no universal consensus on this, but it seems that giving this prerogative to the EP alone is quasi-papal. I would think that autocephaly issues are best decided in a conciliar manner, like in a pan-Orthodox council, but we never have pan-Orthodox church councils.

That being said, the EP cannot both recognize the OCA’s autocephaly, even if it wanted to, and maintain its current archdiocesan structure. If the EP did acknowledge that the OCA is autocephalous, then that would make its entire Greek Archidiocese in America illegitimate — that is, what reason would the EP have for keeping a huge American Greek Orthodox Archdiocese when there is already an autocephalous American church here? In order for the EP to maintain its GOAA and be consistent, it cannot acknowledge the OCA’s autocephaly.

Happy Feast of Sts Constantine and Helen!

In Christ,
Gregg

What then, is being argued? Met. Jonah, rightly I believe, pointed out that there are two schools on autocephaly and the diaspora being argued at the table. There is a third: that evinced by the recent appeal to Romanian dignity by the Holy Synod of Bucharest, basically a phyletist constitution of the Church. But as Met. Jonah pointed out, that is untenable, both by canon and reality. The Greek Church has not openly embraced it (indeed, estopped from doing so by its own Synod of 1872 against the Bulgarians), it has been openly rejected by Russia and others, and has not been articulated by any but Romania at present.

What has been advocated, and on the table, as Met. Jonah states . To quote Fr. John Erickson:

“…To put matters in simplest terms, according to the Russian Church, any autocephalous Church has the right to grant canonical independence to one of its parts. According to Cosntantinople, on the other hand, only an ecumenical coucil can definitely establish an autocephalous Church, and any interim arrangements depend upon approbation of Constantinople, acting in its capacity as the ‘mother church” and “first among equals.”

The EP has taken on the role to champion the latter view (and I believe the EA are intended by the Greek Church only as a means to that end), which I oppose as twisting the canons and the Fathers (in particular, as the history of Constantinople’s own autocephaly can’t bear the scrutiny of the standards it is advocating) in a way similar to what Rome did to the same. That’s not anti-EP, its pro-canonical.

Btw, on Fr. John Erickson’s essay, I believe you are refering to Chapter 7
http://books.google.com/books?id=XgRrh2M08p0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=John+Erickson+Autocephaly&source=bl&ots=vyPbXV1N7g&sig=puFyHCBZ7dbXPjbRGyCYGUdTI8w&hl=en&ei=FKb2S5miLpDuMrHWoJoF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
This last Sunday by chance I happened again upon the original article. In this expanded edition he opens with the proposition (correct in many ways) that “the modern nation-state is just that—modern. It’s only a relatively recent phenomenon,” but, tracing it back to at least 1653, he shows that “autocephaly is historically an elastic concept which has changed a good bit over the years,” its change in the modern age coming to embody the 1653 point that “if a nation has established an independent state not subordinate to the Greek empire, and if the local Church gradually has become stronger, it may in time become self-governing in all respects,” “expressed more stridently in the nineteenth and earlier twentieth century, as the older sense of one Orthodox oikoumene gives way to modern ideas of nationalism and statism,” as Fr. John sums up.

“there have been and continue to be a number of autocephalous churches which are multi-national in character. One need only think of the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Romania, and the Czech Lands and Slovaka—in short, the majority of modern Orthodox churches. All of those churches include lands situated in multiple sovereign states.” I’m not sure of the point of this statement, as the OCA itself fits that description, including at least four sovereign nations. The Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia (as well as Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia and Romania) find themselves embracing multiple sovereign states because of the breakup of the states, multi-national in character, whose territory the said Churches took as their jurisdiction. The PoM, on the one hand absorbed the Church of Georgia as St. Peterburg annexed the Georgian Kingdom. On the other, it expanded into areas (China, Japan) never under Russian sovereignty, and into another (North America) when Russian rule ceased, and going beyond the former borders of the empire. But even in the PoM, the Church has reorganized itself to “match sovereign national boundaries ” (Ukraine, Moldova, Estonia, etc.)

The example of Alexandria brings into relief the issue at hand: the relationship of Alexandria to the Greek Orthodox in the Union of South Africa differs from the relationship of the Phanar to the GOA in only two respects: the former is seperated by land while the latter is seperated by an ocean. And the fact that Africa, in fact bearing a similtude to the “Diaspora” as described for the EA, will not have an EA. Why? Because it has a Holy Synod, thanks, ironically to Pope Meletios (who saw no reason, it seems, to clear his extension of jurisdiction over “All of Africa” with his successor on the Ecumenical Throne). Except for its apostolic foundations and its antiquity, that Holy Synod differs not a jot from the history of the Holy Synod of the OCA.

So the modern nation state is recent: since we live in the present, all autocephalies have followed the nation state in the modern age, and the OCA has covered multiple states since nearly all its history and prehistory, what of it? So most Orthodox Autocephalous Churches, like the OCA, cover multiple states: they also cover each others terriotory (Estonia and Northern Greece being only the most famous flash points) in the same way they are tripping over each other in the “Diaspora.”

So you state your “point is that autocephaly is historically an elastic concept which has changed a good bit over the years. Its definition changes, as well as its inviolability. Several autocephalies have found themselves in the historical dustbin over the centuries; some have been suppressed and returned.” What that has to do with the reality of the OCA autocephaly I do not know. I believe that we disagree on the inviolability issue: I base myself on the example of Jerusalem. Indications (and in this I include the debacle in the Latin American EA) point that the Phanar would like the EA become the mechanism of consigning the OCA to the dustbin of hisotry. Met. Jonah, and his many, many supporters (in and, like myself, outside the OCA) are refusing to go.

In any event, my point is not about whether there should be local churches, boundaries, etc. My point is that autocephaly is historically an elastic concept which has changed a good bit over the years. Its definition changes, as well as its inviolability. Several autocephalies have found themselves in the historical dustbin over the centuries; some have been suppressed and returned.

You are right that I should have spoken more precisely regarding the Slavs. Some in Slavic lands remained under Constantinople for many hundreds of years, and no one considered it un-Orthodox.

The idea that autocephaly necessarily must match sovereign national boundaries does not square with the historical witness for two reasons:

First, the modern nation-state is just that—modern. It’s only a relatively recent phenomenon.

Second, there have been and continue to be a number of autocephalous churches which are multi-national in character. One need only think of the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Romania, and the Czech Lands and Slovaka—in short, the majority of modern Orthodox churches. All of those churches include lands situated in multiple sovereign states.

Anyway, I’ll second Matthew’s endorsement of Fr. John Erickson’s essay. This is all hashed out in significant detail there, much better than I could manage. It’s really not stuff that’s being debated, except perhaps by those who aren’t aware of the data.

In any event, no one here is arguing for papism, that the EP should be in control of everything, etc., etc. Please take that spat somewhere else.