SS
#0
Do the Metropolitans, Archbishops, Bishops
of OCA, GOARCH, ANTIOCHIAN
ARCHDIOCESE, and ROCOR ever meet
together? Are they in communion? OCA,
GOARCH, AND ANTIOCHIAN seem more
modern and ecumenical-minded, (or am I
misled on that?), but would ROCOR ever
commune with them, since ROCOR seems
more traditionalist (conservative?) and less
open to ecumenistic trends .....
Anyway, the Orthodox mostly seem to
eschew ecumenism (except for the
Patriarch of Constantinople, and the
Moscow Patriarchate\'s participation in
WCC)... Do you think the Ecumenical
Patriarch will stop pursuing ecumenism with
Rome, and Moscow will leave the WCC?
Be the first person to like this.
View All Previous Posts
Rev Fr Athanasios Haros
#30
Viewed in this way, it is not difficult to understand why Moscow felt it was entitled by Orthodox Tradition to grant autocephaly to its own daughter church.
Herein lies my problem. Autocephaly is not granted by a single Church but by ALL the Autocephalous Churches. The OCA should never be considered Autocephalous until that time when EACH Church has recongized it. Until then, autonomous yes, but not autocephalous. That is what the Antiochian Archdiocese is, autonomous. To ignore this is \"one\" reason why I don\'t feel we are ready to be \"on our own\" quite yet. This same issue was part of a discussion several months ago about the future World Council of Orthodxy. The disagreement over America between Moscow and the EP, if the Council were to happen today, would cause a great schism in the Church. Better to have a canonical anomaly than schism.
Be the first person to like this.
EP
#29
Well, from what you said, Father, it\'s plain that Moscow does not share the view that autocephaly must be granted by ALL the Churches. Where does this view come from? There must be documentation somewhere. Is it from a canon?
Be the first person to like this.
JW
#7
FrAthanasios wrote:
Viewed in this way, it is not difficult to understand why Moscow felt it was entitled by Orthodox Tradition to grant autocephaly to its own daughter church.
Herein lies my problem. Autocephaly is not granted by a single Church but by ALL the Autocephalous Churches. The OCA should never be considered Autocephalous until that time when EACH Church has recongized it. Until then, autonomous yes, but not autocephalous. That is what the Antiochian Archdiocese is, autonomous. To ignore this is "one" reason why I don't feel we are ready to be "on our own" quite yet. This same issue was part of a discussion several months ago about the future World Council of Orthodxy. The disagreement over America between Moscow and the EP, if the Council were to happen today, would cause a great schism in the Church. Better to have a canonical anomaly than schism.
I\'m not posting a debate question here, just a question....
Fr, I know that during the revolution, Patriarch Tikon made statements about the Church Abroad as to how, if it were no longer possible for the mother church to properly continue relations with The CHurch Abroad, that it, ROCOR, should sever relations with the MP.
What I am not clear on, if you know, is: Did P. Tihkon basicly say that, if that day came, the ROCOR had his blessing to be \"autocephalus\" or was he speaking more on \"autonomous.\"
Be the first person to like this.
Andrew Leer
#8
Well this all reminds me of something I once heard at coffee hour...
There once was a non-Orthodox American and an Orthodox (OCA, GOA, Carpatho Rus, ROCOR, Antiocean, whichever) man who were stranded on a desert island together.
The Orthodox man needed a Church, and so he when to work on it and created one that was beautiful enormous and elaborate. The non-Orthodox man was impressed and said "wow, that's really amazing".
Then the Orthodox man started making another Church, larger and more beautiful and elaborate than the Church that he built before! Confused, the non-Orthodox man asked him, "But you already built a Church, what is this one for?" to which the Orthodox man replied, "This is the Church that I go to, and that is the Church that I don't go to,"
:grin:
I used to think that maybe merging them into one, big, North American Church would be a good idea, but I agree I think that things probably need to happen more organically rather than all at once.
Remember that there are still people coming to America from other lands, and when they get here they usually look for an Orthodox Church that matches the ethnic background where they came from.
Besides as was stated earlier, better to stay in communion with each other than to have a schism over the letter of the law. It\'s been said that at the grass roots level all of Orthodoxy is united.
Be the first person to like this.
Rev Fr Athanasios Haros
#2
The rift between Moscow and the EP on this matter is clear, but what is the source of it? Again, it seems to me that the root cause is the EP's claiming of canonical prerogatives that not everyone is in agreement about. I mean, is there anyone who agrees with the EP's decision to accept Bishop Basil in Great Britain, in spite of the fact that he was not properly released by the Russian Church? Its this sort of ecclesiastical hubris, in my judgment, that is the root of the problem.
This is probably the easiest question of all...
fallen human nature
Be the first person to like this.
JD
#13
This account has been removed.
Be the first person to like this.
EP
#14
Simple membership in the WCC does not equal an espousal of ecumenist heresy.
Be the first person to like this.
EH
#15
If you really want to get technical, St. Brendan got here first. There are Celtic petroglyphs in WV & KY that date to the 6th Century and discuss the birth of Christ. Who\'s jurisdiction would that put us under???
Be the first person to like this.
JD
#16
This account has been removed.
Be the first person to like this.
EP
#25
That all depends on one\'s definition of ecumenism. We\'ve already gone over that with limited success elsewhere on the forum. Probably best to leave the whole issue alone since it is a bottomless pit, kinda like Zarnac from Return of the Jedi--where we learn a whole new definiion of pain and suffering, being slowly digested over the next 1,000 years.
Be the first person to like this.
Rev Fr Athanasios Haros
#3
KatherineofAppalachia wrote:
If you really want to get technical, St. Brendan got here first. There are Celtic petroglyphs in WV & KY that date to the 6th Century and discuss the birth of Christ. Who's jurisdiction would that put us under???
I believe would make us Roman Catholic since the Celts were in the West....and therefore under Rome.
:)
Be the first person to like this.
MC
#19
FrAthanasios wrote:
KatherineofAppalachia wrote:
If you really want to get technical, St. Brendan got here first. There are Celtic petroglyphs in WV & KY that date to the 6th Century and discuss the birth of Christ. Who's jurisdiction would that put us under???
I believe would make us Roman Catholic since the Celts were in the West....and therefore under Rome.
:)
But Father, 6th century was during the pre-Schism days. :tongue: :)
Be the first person to like this.
EH
#21
FrAthanasios wrote:
\"I believe would make us Roman Catholic since the Celts were in the West....and therefore under Rome.\"
Drat! I was afraid you\'d say that!! :)
But Mitch is right, it was pre-Schism. My choir director tells me the Celts had an 8 tone musical system, as well. He jokes that it should be what American Orthodox liturgical music should be based on. THAT would be interesting! :D
Be the first person to like this.
Rev Fr Athanasios Haros
#24
KatherineofAppalachia wrote:
FrAthanasios wrote:
"I believe would make us Roman Catholic since the Celts were in the West....and therefore under Rome."
Drat! I was afraid you'd say that!! :)
But Mitch is right, it was pre-Schism. My choir director tells me the Celts had an 8 tone musical system, as well. He jokes that it should be what American Orthodox liturgical music should be based on. THAT would be interesting! :D
In all seriousness, I don\'t know much about the Celtic history. What amount of mission work is there eveidence of? Petrogliphs are evidence they were here, but what about reaching out? Is there any evidence. I would love to know more the Celtic history.
Be the first person to like this.
EH
#28
Not sure. I first heard about it from some of the monks at Holy Cross Hermitage in Wayne, WV. It was also mentioned on a CD one of monks gave to me (he knows I like to listen to talks in the car). I will try to figure out which one it was and see if some citation is offered.
Be the first person to like this.