www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Archbishop Christodoulos on reception of Bishop Basil

http://www.interfax-religion.com/print.php?act=news&id=2543

2007-01-31 16:21:00

Constantinople�s acceptance of Bishop Basil Osborn a threat to inter-Orthodox peace - Archbishop Christodoulos

Moscow, January 31, Interfax - Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens and All Greece has deplored Constantinople�s decision to accept Bishop Basil Osborn in its jurisdiction.

In a reply to Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia he expressed regret at emerging threats �to constructive cooperation between local ethnic diasporas in common efforts to sold burning pastoral problems�.

The archbishop noted that this situation �is fraught with violation of church order and troubles harmful first of all to the unity of holy Orthodox Churches�.

He also stressed the commitment of the Greek Orthodox Church �to the canonical tradition established through long church practice�.

The primate of the Greek Church believes �the meeting of burning pastoral needs and prevention of a dangerous divisive situation from developing in the Orthodox diaspora could be facilitated by proposals worked out by the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission for a Holy and Great Council at its meetings in 1990 and 1993.

Archbishop Christodoulos cited the following proposal of the commission: �Orthodox Churches pledge to avoid any action which can affect a canonical settlement of the problem of diaspora including the establishment of new dioceses in the diaspora alongside the already existing ones�.

Despite the proposal made by the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission in 1993, the Church of Constantinople has since established the following sees: Toronto 1996, Buenos Aires 1996, Gong Kong 1996, Panama 1996, Spain and Portugal 2003, Korea 2004, recalls the official website of the Moscow Patriarchate.


Alexandr

Constantinople harms Orthodox unity, Greek prelate charges [cwnews.com]

Did I miss something? Was Bishop Basil formally excommunicated by Moscow?

Also, can someone explain what the issue is with the EP accepting/establishing Orthodox eparchies around the world? Moscow has been doing this for years, so I am confused.

Gordo

Dear Gordo, it is a matter of ecclesiastical precedence. Where there is a Canonical Orthodox Episcopate, it is unprecedented for another bishop to set up a competing diocese. For example, the Greek Church is established in Ghana, Uganda and Kenya. You will find no Russian Church established there. The Russians had evangelized the Americas, and the first Orthodox bishops in North America were Russian bishops, therefore, it is a canonical anomaly for other Churches to be present here. But even leaving the really bizzare case of North America out of the picture for now, in the case of Estonia there existed a canonical Orthodox hierarchy in place. There was no need for a seperate eparchy, which only leads to confusion for the faithful. The same can be said for Korea and China.

Bishop Basil has not been formally excommunicated yet. The Russian Church is still hoping for an amicable settlement.

Alexandr

Ah ... but the first Orthodox parish in the United States was actually a Greek parish in New Orleans. Remember, Alaska did not become part of the United States until after the Civil War.

Talk about anomalies

Ah, but twere not the first hierarchs in the New World Russian? Did not Bishop Raphael (Hawaweeny) serve under the Russian Church, as opposed to starting his own? There was no doubt that the New World was administered by the Russian Church. It was only with the confusion brought on by the Bolshevik revolution that the situation became the worm's nest that it is.

Alexandr

It is an interesting discussion -- as a historian who has studied this, I think both the Russians and the Greeks have a legitimate claim to canonical priority in the "new world." Although as you state the first hierarchs to reside in the US were Russian, the Greek communities never recognized their canonical authority and always looked to their own hierarchs in Greece. This is not true of the Arabs -- who looked to the Russians in an attempt to "get out from under" the Greeks (see the life of St Raphael Hawaweeny for more details). Of course, the Slavs looked to the Russians as well. But the Greeks never did. So the history is not quite as clear as the defenders of Russian priority want to make it -- Of course, as you point out, the Bolshevik Revolution made a complicated situation much worse as multiple bishops under multiple sees wandered throughout the land ...

Here is the information from the GOA website:

The first Greek Orthodox community in the Americas was founded in New Orleans, LA by a small colony of Greek merchants. History also records that on June 26,1768 the first Greek colonists landed at St. Augustine, FL, the oldest city in America.

The history of the Orthodox in North America began with the arrival of eight Russian Orthodox monks at Kodiak Island, Alaska in 1794. The monks established a mission in Alaska, which became a diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church a few years after the United States purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867. By the late 19th century, the Church had grown in other areas of the United States due to the arrival of immigrants from areas of Europe and the Middle East. Most of these immigrants, regardless of nationality or ethnic background, were united under a single North American Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Nowhere would I suggest that the Greeks be under a Russian Bishop, as the two are quite different linguistically as well as liturgically. Greeks should be under Greek bishops, but all the bishops should be under one synod, which, in the case of North America, should be the Moscow Patriarchate, as tehy were the first Episcopacy here, and were already well established long before other episcopacies moved in.

As far as the history of a priest coming and starting a church, yes, it did happen, but without a bishop, it was not a Church. Where the bishop is, there is the Church.

Personally, I would not care if my bishop were Russian, Greek or Pakistani, as long as he were Orthodox, but the practice of the Church for good ecclesiastical order was for the different Churches to respect each other. Which, unfortunately, in North America, has not happened.

Alexandr

The Orthodox of Africa are under Alexandria. That's from a practical perspective different than the establishment of an ethnic jurisdiction. All Orthodox in a Local Church are under that Church (regardless of language or rite). Thus, a Montenegrin speaking parish in Albania is under the jurisdiction of Archbishop Anastasios, not Patriarch Pavle. Unlike Catholicism, there is no extraterritoriality in Orthodoxy. There is one Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch in Orthodoxy, which also includes the Greeks or Cypriots who may be studying at the Balamand (for our HOS student group). Whereas the Catholics have a Melkite Patriarch, Maronite and Syrian Patriarch of Antioch, and also had a Latin one.

Having discussed the canonical norm, however there are practicalities. The EP's establishment of ethnic jurisdictions is under the justification of what it calls the diaspora as part of its EC canonical "terre Barbarum". There are others who say that it is merely the search for souls as the EP has so little to speak of outside of jurisdictions like the Greek Archdiocese, and the Ukrainians and Carptho-Russians (Rusyns). Is it really complicated or just simple economics? The Orthodox are still trying to sort it out here in North America. However, multiple patriarchates in the same city is not an issue like it is for Catholicism where the faith is defined by Communion with Rome, not the Local Church (as the Church in its entirety).

Just My Three Cents.

Christ Is Among Us! Indeed He Is And Ever Shall be!

How would that work out in practicality should the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox ever come to full communion?

I would like to know if anyone has seen this topic discussed on the Greek Orthodox website or in a Greek source.
I find Interfax to be les than truthful. In the past they have posted articles which later had to be retracted.
I find it odd that the Orthodox Church of Greece would issue such a statment and would like to see confirmation from a Greek source.

Alas - any discussion of the jurisdictional problems in Eastern Orthodoxy becomes hopelessly complicated, partly because there are no agreed rules, and partly because the history which gave rise to the problem is hopelessly convoluted.

Estonia is one of many cases in point: when it became impossible to continue under Moscow in the nineteen-twenties, the Estonian Church appealed to Constantinople, which did indeed grant protection to the Estonian Orthodox Church. The present Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow is the son of a priest of the Estonian Orthodox Church (Patriarchate of Constantinople) and was himself baptized by a priest of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Without so much as a by-your-leave, Moscow "repossessed" Estonia in the period of World War II - as Constantinople has pointed out, this was done in several cases; apparently the Moscow Patriarchate considered the Red Army to be the source of canonical legitimacy.

When Estonia became independent, on the collapse of the USSR, the Estonian Orthodox naturally wanted their autonomous Church back, and appealed to Constantinople - which did not refuse them. But in the Soviet period, thanks to the deliberate demographic policy of the Soviet government, there were quite a number of ethnic Russians in Estonia. Some of these were Orthodox, and wished to remain with the Moscow Patriarchate - after some serious unpleasantness, both Patriarchates agreed that both Patriarchates would maintain parallel jurisdictions in Estonia (did someone say that Orthodoxy does not recognize any form of extraterritoriality?).

Not that I wish to imply that Moscow alone plays fast and loose. In Iakovos's time, the Greek Orthodox bishops everywhere else in the Western Hemisphere were simply auxiliaries of Iakovos - the Greek bishop in, say, Buenos Aires could not so much as tonsure a reader without written permission from Iakovos. Makes the Pope look shy and retiring (imagine: one bishop for an entire hemisphere AND "the oceans Atlantic and Pacific" - even the fish could not escape).

Just a few years ago, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch suddenly began creating parishes in England without reference to the local Orthodox bishops - which the local Orthodox bishops found, shall we say, impudent.

And on, and on. I haven't even scratched the surface.

Fr. Serge

I believe that Ray posted the same article from Catholic World News, which I think can hardly be described as a KGB front! (unless the Jesuits have taken it over! ) (JOKE!!!!, for those of you who are easily offended!)

Alexandr