www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Speech of Metropolitan Jonah

That's not the reality of how churches in North America under the Omophorion of Constantinople operate. It seems like people don't want to be bothered with the facts though. Basing things on "common knowledge" is good enough. Like the EP having papal fantasies. Everyone "knows" that, it's "common knowledge".

I also think it's disappointing that Metropolitan Jonah used the tried and true tactic of trying to discredit someone in Orthodox eyes by somehow making them seem like they're really a Roman Catholic.

"And how can any patriarch be called a "foreign potentate"? "

But in fact he was, from 1453 to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Read Runciman's "The Great Church in Captivity": in addition to being spiritual leader of Orthodox Christians, the Patriarch of Constantinople was also the secular leader of all Christians within the Ottoman Empire, the "Rhum Millet". The Ottomans were too busy being (alternately) warlike and decadent to be much bothered with administering their ramshackle, polyglot empire, so they appointed ethnarchs to look after each group. The Patriarch was the ethnarch of the Rhum (Romans), a term that the Turks used for all Christians in their territory. In this capacity, they not only had great influence over other Orthodox Churches under Ottoman control (e.g., Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), appointing and deposing their Patriarchs, they also controlled things like taxation, administrative appointments, and so on. As Runciman wrote, "Everything and everyone was for sale". Of course, there was the constant risk of being strangled or drowned by the Turks if they didn't like what you did. The system created a tendency for the Ecumenical Patriarchate to think in somewhat autocratic terms (more and more frequently disconnected from the ability to enforce its decrees), as well as great resentment among the non-Greek Orthodox.

"That's not the reality of how churches in North America under the Omophorion of Constantinople operate. "

This is, in fact, pretty much the truth. His yoke is easy and his burden is light. However, there are parties on all sides interested in keeping the American Orthodox disunited. Though small in number, the American Orthodox are by far the richest pool of Orthodox Christians in the world, and the ancient patriarchates depend very much on remittances from what they insist on calling the "Diaspora" (as though any American Orthodox are actually going to move back to the "Old Country".

After reading this entire thread, I can now safely say that I have a headache. I don't see how anything that is happening is good. None of this fighting does anything to promote the Gospel. Frankly, I can see why some Protestants make a case for local congregational autonomy. I think all of this bickering over jurisdiction is entirely contrary to the teaching of the New Testament. See I Corinthians 1:10-13.

Joe

Actually, I don't think there's anything wrong with being a Roman Catholic

But I was struck by the almost nationalistic tone of Metropolitan Jonah's rhetoric. That's why I posted the link to his Beatitude's enthronement banquet speech. The content of the two speeches is much the same, but the tone and tenor are very different. At his enthronement he seems eirenic and hopeful, but in his more recent speech he seems disillusioned and polemical. What has happened in the meantime to make this difference? Surely Archimandrite Elpidophoros' speech [aoiusa.org] can't have made such a big impact? Is Metropolitan Jonah genuinely worried that the OCA will somehow lose its autocephaly?

Thank you! I have read Runciman. However, the Ottoman Empire thankfully no longer exists.

I don't expect you to agree, and please don't be offended, but this is why there is a real need for a Petrine ministry in the universal Church!

All of this is leading me to revisit my Bonhoeffer and Kierkegaard library! For a contrast to this current ecclesiastical squabbling, I recommend Bonhoeffer's Life Together.

Joe

I believe the vast majority of funding for the EP comes from Greece. It is of course another point of "common knowledge" that the EP maintains a stranglehold on North America for the sake of money.

I must admit I haven't read Life Together [amazon.com], but perhaps I should... If you want an addition to your Kierkegaard, you might try The Tragic Sense of Life [gutenberg.org] by Miguel de Unamuno.

Even, or, indeed, especially, if there were one, united, autocephalous American Orthodox Church, I am sure it would contribute most generously to Orthodox Churches all over the world, as part of its διακονία. Americans, after all, are truly among the most generous people in the world.

"I believe the vast majority of funding for the EP comes from Greece. It is of course another point of "common knowledge" that the EP maintains a stranglehold on North America for the sake of money."

Do I detect a certain touchiness? Did I single out the Ecumenical Patriarchate? Yes, Greece provides the bulk of funding for the Phanar, but as that is still not sufficient to meet its needs, donations from the GOA and other EP suffragan jurisdictions remains critical to its survival. I believe the AOC is even more dependent on contributions from abroad.

"Thank you! I have read Runciman. However, the Ottoman Empire thankfully no longer exists."

"I don't expect you to agree, and please don't be offended, but this is why there is a real need for a Petrine ministry in the universal Church! "

Both of these statements are true, and both are closely related. On more than one occasion I heard Vladyka Vsevolod of Scopelos say that Orthodoxy has been searching for a center of gravity, a focus of unity, ever since the fall of Byzantium. It looked to the Turkish Sultan, but he is gone. It looked to the Tsar, but he is gone. It even tried the Kommisars, but they are gone, too. But, said Vladyka, there was a logical and historical source of primacy in the Church of Rome: this was the natural, the inevitable focus of unity for the entire Church.

The key issue was therefore, not whether there should be communion with the Church of Rome, but the form that this communion should take, and the manner in Roman primacy and the Petrine ministry should be exercised.

I think neither Eastern Catholics nor the Orthodox can or should accept the status quo as it evolved in the second millennium; such a conception of primacy is not consistent with our own Tradition of conciliarity, but at the same time, conciliarity without primacy leads precisely to the kind of centrifugal forces we see at work in the Orthodox Church. Vladyka was not alone among Orthodox bishops and theologians in seeing the necessity of primacy within the Orthodox Church, nor in placing that primacy in the Church of Rome. And he was not alone in seeing the need to balance primacy and conciliarity, holding both in dynamic tension.

I believe the solution lies in the words of Canon of the Holy Apostles No.34, and in a proper understanding of the meaning of the terms "Primacy of Honor" and "Primus inter pares", as they were understood in the first millennium. I believe that a detailed, in-depth and ecumenical historical analysis can bring us to an answer, but only if both sides are willing to put aside their pride, perquisites and polemics. I imagine the very thought gives a lot of people the willies.

But the situation we see in Orthodoxy around the world ought to give everybody pause, and force reconsideration.

If by "local congregational autonomy" you mean the autonomy of a particular, local Church comprising presbyters, deacons and laity gathered around the Bishop, then fine. But even so, the Church is not only local, but also regional and universal. That's why there is a need for the principle of primacy. In each region or nation, one Bishop must be primate. And in the universal Church, the Bishop of Rome must be primate. But the exact nature of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is and should remain open to discussion.

Agreed. Following the money trail reveals many things, even in ecclesiastical circles.

And this is exactly what I stated on another thread as one of the most probable reasons for the recent actions of the Antiochian Patriarchate in exerting tighter control over their Bishops abroad.

+Cosmos