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

"FWIW, Metropolitan Jonah is responding to Archimandrite Elpidophoros Lambriniadis who delivered a paper to the Holy Cross seminarians on March 16th in which the Archimandrite speaks to points made by then Archimandrite (now Metropolitan) Jonah at the St. Vladimir’s summer institute."

And quite a broadside that was. Boiled down to its essentials, the Archimandrite claims that the ecclesiastical situation of the Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States is uncanonical. He does so in a rather un-irenic manner, one which can only be described as insulting (I'm known for being rather blunt, but I can be more diplomatic than that), and then uses it as a springboard to insist that all jurisdictions in the so-called Diaspora (including the "so-called OCA", to use the Archimandrite's infelicitous phrase) must be under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate--which, presented in the manner it was, seems very much like a naked grab for power.

For his part, the original paper by Archimandrite Jonah seems to me to be a bit thin on the ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church, particularly when he claims there was no "overarching primacy". Again, it boils down to what primacy means, but most certainly there was a primacy accorded to the Patriarch of Constantinople, whose pastoral oversight included (most of the time) the Church of Kyiv, the Church of Bulgaria, and the Church of Serbia. Only gradually did this primacy of authority (not power or jurisdiction) break down, mainly as a result of the enfeebled state of the Patriarchate under Ottoman rule. But it was real and normative up to and beyond the fall of Constantinople. It is the proliferation of autocephalous Churches in the post Byzantine period, rather, that is anomalous and uncanonical.

The Orthodox have spent most of the second millennium in reaction to the Church of Rome. As such, they are quite capable of expressing (in good apophatic fashion) what they believe primacy is not (at present, that means it is not the Papacy); the time has come, however, for them to discern and define what primacy actually is--if not for the sake of restoring communion with Rome, then for the sake of their own integrity as a communion of Churches.

Hehehe...went to Compline, left Compline, shopped at supermarket, came home, put groceries away, signed on to my e-mail, saw an email from a rabid OCL member whose list server I am on (unvoluntarily) titled: 'Met. Jonah to Old World bishops: Hands off the American Church!', deleted it immediately in annoyance, signed on here, and this thread is still going strong!!

This is definitely NOT the stuff that makes Lent meaningful...in the awesome service which is called Compline, we get so close to the Lord through our prayers, our metanoies, our kneeling, our tears, our prostrations for the St. Ephraim prayer, that one does not want to then disappoint Him with passions and anomosities and arguments and bickerings, especially involving our Bishops and Patriarchs. May our Lord bring His peace and His love to their hearts and their souls as they participate in this prayer. Amen.

O Lord and Master of my life, take from me the spirit of sloth, despair, lust of power, and idle talk.

But give rather the spirit of chastity, humility, patience, and love to Thy servant.

Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see my own transgressions, and not to judge my brother, for blessed art Thou, unto ages of ages. Amen.

In Christ,
Alice

Most nations with an Orthodox presence don't have a canonical autocephalous or autonomous Church of their own. France? Germany? Spain? Italy? Doesn't OCA see the irony in calling for autocephaly on the basis of the nation-state and yet ruling Orthodox Churches in Mexico and Canada, and some parishes in Australia?

Really, why this obsession with autocephaly? I cannot understand it. If every country were to get its own autocephalous Church, just imagine the massive chaos and fragmentation in Orthodoxy. Do the Orthodox really want that?

I'm Roman Catholic and Filipino to boot, but I too am uneasy about the OCA and its ever more aggressive drive to get everyone into an autocephalous American Church. From my outsider's viewpoint, liturgical minimalism, a relatively weak monastic presence (certainly nothing compared to what ROCOR or GOA have) and an increasing tendency to liberal theology (remember the recent book advocating women priesthood published by St. Vlads? And don't forget the Orthodox Study Bible with all its defects) have burrowed into OCA. Without ROCOR, the MP and Constantinople, what would have happened to Orthodoxy in America?

Besides, how long has Orthodoxy been in the USA? A little more than 200 years, much of that confined in Alaska and California. In contrast, Russia won autocephaly more than 450 years after its baptism, and it would not even have happened were it not for the Russian rebellion against the Council of Florence. All the other autocephalous churches spent very long periods under foreign churches before winning complete freedom, and rarely was autocephaly granted without the recipient first forming a solid Orthodox culture.

All this talk about "American Orthodoxy" is eerily reminiscent of "Americanism" as specifically condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1899.

Why should non-Americans care about what is happening to the Churches in America? Precisely because of the disproportionate influence of anything and everything American on world affairs, even in ecclesiastical matters.

"Even within the autocephalous framework, there is a desire for a more diffused system of authority. Ebed Melech mentioned the AOI earlier, and you can read their model of North American unity here:

http://www.aoiusa.org/main/page.php?page_id=127

One thing they believe is the bishops themselves should be nominated and elected by the laity. It is of course already a widely accepted practice to have lay presidency at the parish level."

Since this did not work for the Protestants (converts from which comprise an increasingly large and vocal segment of the Orthodox laity), what makes them think it will be any different in an Orthodox setting? One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result each time.

"I'm Roman Catholic and Filipino to boot, but I too am uneasy about the OCA and its ever more aggressive drive to get everyone into an autocephalous American Church."

I guess you wouldn't be on board with my idea for dividing the Catholic Church into territorially defined, multi-ritual patriarchates: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa, Middle East, Asia, North America, South America, and Australia-Oceania. Each would have its own Patriarch, each would have its own synod. The Pope, as Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West, would have direct jurisdiction only over Western Europe. He would have to function within a concilium of fellow Patriarchs, and his Papal authority would be limited mainly to matters pertaining to unity of faith and adjudicating appeals from other Churches. Think of it as Pentarchy on Steroids, but I do believe it is the only approach that will be viable in the new millennium (it will also force Latin bishops everywhere to grow up and stop looking to Rome to manage their affairs).

In reality, only a couple of new patriarchates would be needed. The Patriarch of Alexandria would take over Africa; the Patriarch of Antioch (pick one) would cover the Middle East with the exception of Jerusalem, which would remain an autocephalous, patriarchal Church in accordance with 28 Chalcedon; Edessa would have responsibility for Asia (the Assyrians did almost convert China, you know); Kyiv would have Eastern Europe. This would require new patriarchates only for North and South America, and for Australia-Oceania.

Your idea isn't radical at all and has been proposed in the past. Even the young Joseph Ratzinger spoke of regional patriarchates, and some Western sees did exercise quasi-patriarchal powers in the past. Right now, though, given the radical tendencies in Catholicism, I'd prefer a single Roman Patriarchate. Once the Church has been renewed and orthodoxy restored, give me a call.

What I was criticizing is the idea that every NATION should have its own autocephalous Church or even Patriarchate.

Regarding Orthodoxy today and autocephaly, I'd like to offer the following thoughts:

It was easier for national cultures (which were more homogenous then than now) to assimilate Orthodoxy into their very bones. Could we not see the autocephaly of strongly Orthodox countries or peoples as a recognition of this cultural "transfiguration"? In the case of Albania, Poland, and the Czech and Slovak Lands, these countries may not be Orthodox but they do have a very long history of Orthodox presence as well as close proximity to strongly Orthodox countries and cultures. They truly can be expected to stand on their own, and in any case, help is very near.

But where is the "Orthodox culture", the "Orthodox base" in the USA? Most parishes can't even stay open for worship on weekdays. As it stands, without the strong hand of "foreign" hierarchs, can an American Orthodox Church really resist the currents of secularism and heterodoxy? Just asking.

The Philippines was ruled by foreign bishops for nearly 400 years. It was only in the mid-20th century that the hierarchy became predominantly Filipino. And yet, we do not regret this. We Filipinos needed that time to really get into our bones what Catholicism is. Once we had developed a strong Catholic culture, then we got our own hierarchy as well. But the CULTURE has to be there first. Independence makes no sense when the requisite maturity and capacity to handle its responsibilities are not there.

I suppose the reply would be that keeping lay people out of the governance of the church is not working out all that well either. It certainly has antecedents in the New Testamant. That particular idea I think is something that was proposed in the Moscow Council of 1917-18, but never enacted. Fr. Michael Plekon touches on that here:

http://www.ocanews.org/HundredYears4.07.09.html

The validation of the views of the Paris school is interesting to me.

Some of Luther's ideas on bishops were quite sound, even if later ignored.

That probably summarizes a good deal of the attitude of Western Europe after the Peace of Westphalia.

I've got a copy of Unamuno's work. I'm going to have to put up on my priority reading shelf. Thanks for the suggestion :-).

Joe

No doubt you were praying St Ephraim's prayer as you saw the statement from the Metropolitan and deleted it in annoyance? Righteous annoyance, perhaps?

Nothing, if you're a Catholic. But if you are, then the Metropolitan or OCA has nothing to do with you, and why bother to have an opinion?

"I suppose the reply would be that keeping lay people out of the governance of the church is not working out all that well either. It certainly has antecedents in the New Testamant. That particular idea I think is something that was proposed in the Moscow Council of 1917-18, but never enacted. "

All forms of ecclesial governance will fail if they are based upon secular premises; i.e., on the Church as an institution in which power relationships predominate. The Church is not a democracy; neither is it a monarchy or a dictatorship. Rather, made in the image of the Holy Trinity, it is a communion, and in a true communion there is hierarchy without subordination. In a true communion each defers to the other according to his status and his gifts, just as in the Trinity the Father has primacy but is not greater than the Son or the Spirit.

Those who would administer the Church as a monarchy, in which the hierarchs speak and we obey, do not live in accordance with Christ's observation that the great ones of the gentiles lord it over them and call themselves benefactors. He says, "It shall not be so with you". Those who are given authority within the Church are become the servants of all.

At the same time, those who think everything in the Church can be submitted to a vote do not understand that Truth is not subject to the popular will. Truth is self-validating; it is true, and remains true, whether all, some, or none believe it.

The only way to ensure that truth and love prevails in the Church is if all the orders, the episcopate, the presbyterate, the diaconate, and the people, live in harmonious communion. In his diocese, the bishop is primus, but a wise bishop will confer with this presbyters, and make no radical changes without their assent; the presbyters, in their turn, will defer to the bishop, and do nothing extraordinary without his permission. Within the parish, the presbyter is primus, and all the laity and the deacons should defer to his authority, and do nothing extraordinary without his permission. But a wise presbyter will confer with his deacons and with the people, and do nothing unusual without their consent as well. In this way, as the Fathers noted, unanimity and harmony shall prevail to the greater glory of the Holy Trinity.

"No doubt you were praying St Ephraim's prayer as you saw the statement from the Metropolitan and deleted it in annoyance? Righteous annoyance, perhaps?"

Thank you, Lord, for not making me like that Pharisee over there, but humble and meek like the Publican.

Latin Catholic,

Yes I think it may've been! And it is Holy Week. So I am trying to follow the moderators' suggestions about keeping a decent tone in the thread.

Alexis