www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Answering Eastern Orthodox points

Hmm, I just can't reconcile that view with the one bishop in one city principle. Although it is true that, even from the beginning in North America, it was the intent in the early 20th century of the Russian Diocese to minister to each ethnic group with their own bishop, there is no indication that this was nothing more (and that today's situation should be nothing more) than a temporary solution to a more permanent geographical structure.

In fact, scripturally this should be very clear to us. One of the most attractive things about the Church in the earliest centuries was it was a place where Jew and Greek could be one in Christ in one body, one communnity, whereas society certainly did not support such structures. St. Paul's writings are replete with such phrases - it is one of the great hallmarks of the Christian faith.

I am praying that my parish is becoming more and more a model of what the Church of America can and should and will look like as the years go on. I don't tell the Ukranian people, you go over there to "your church and your bishop," (even though we have a Ukranian Orthodox Church one block away) or the Greeks or Italians, or Poles, or Germans, or Japanese, or Romanians, etc... We have all of those ethnicities (and I mean, people that were born in those countries, not just of "that heritage"). In Christ, all are made one, and the bishop is (should be!) the bishop of that geogrpahical community/area, not just of one ethnicity or subset of that area.

Priest Thomas

Bless, Father Thomas!

I've struggled with that point, which is also the Administrator's point, but have come to the same conclusion as before.

Culturally, North America is an extension of the Churches of Europe, Asia and Africa.

The future "American Orthodox Church" will simply be another jurisdiction for those without a cultural identity that extends, by way of country of origin, beyond these shores.

Perhaps with time, things will be as you and the Administrator say.

But not now.

I too am sorry about that.

Alex

I used to say "the canons can be outdated." After my recent canon law class, I cannot in good conscience say that. Canons are a reflection of "THE CANON" which is Jesus Christ, the ultimate measuring rod (canon means "measuring stick" or the equivalent).

I Nicea 8 was written at the height of multiculturalism: the Roman Empire. You can't get more mulitcultural than that.

I agree that in a multi-ritual church like the Catholic Church, it would be imprudent to enforce this. But the canon I Nicea 8 reflects the unchanging truth that terrioriality guarantees unity. So, we must have territorial dioceses as a starting point.

Say a reunion happens between Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians, and Catholics (praise God!). We could aim for one bishop per city with vicar bishops supporting minority rites. Or we could set up different overlapping dioceses but under the same metropolitan and with no more than one bishop per city. I am not against getting creative, but I am firmly in support of the territoriality clause because even in Rome there was only one bishop per city to guarantee that the Church is one.

I am not a real "original thinker" so I can't come up with any alternative plans, but one must remember that the canons reflect unchanging truths that must always be respected. They can in and of themselves be superceeded but the meaning behind them cannot.

anastasios

Shlomo LatinTrad,
Which part do you wish for me to explain. The dogmas part, or the doctrinal definition part.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Shlomo Unity In Christ,
What part of my post do you not agree with since I am reflecting Catholic positions on these points.

Further, I do not belong to a Church of the Byzantine Tradition, but one from the Antiochene-Edessan Tradition. Therefore, my points refect Catholic Theology from that tradition.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Dear Anastasios,

Do they make as many jokes about canon lawyers as they do about secular lawyers?

It is true that Roman society was multicultural, as you say.

In fact, what is "Byzantine" is an amalgam of three major cultures - Latin, Greek and Slavic, even though they called themselves (New) Romans and spoke more than one language as their national language.

More precisely, we need to discuss (and I want unity as much as you do, Sage of the East!) the way in which "national Churches" have developed in the East and what the implications are for a vision of a united jurisdiction in North America.

This is not a theoretical issue as much as it is a real stumbling block that's out there and can't be easily overcome.

Things are even more pronounced from the point of view of the "national Church" in Canada, precisely because we beat out you Americans in the area of multiculturalism (as well as in a number of others that don't involve military muscle and millions of dollars ).

The Church of Ukraine, and other Churches, are so linked with the national culture of the people, including, I might add, the issue of being in possession of one's own "national hierarchy" - that to even suggest a unified administration in NA would mean, to these people, a) unthinkable separation from the church in the ethnic homeland and b) being ruled by bishops who are not of the same cultural identity.

This is why I say that the way you, Fr. Thomas and the Administrator have posed the issue resounds touches all the right and proper canonical notes - but is seriously lacking by way of an ecclesial reality check.

So if you can pull this off - hey, more power to you.

But if you get burned trying - I won't say I told you so.

A great weekend - and this is a great break from housecleaning chores.

Alex

Alex,

My Ukrainian canon law professor specifically stated that in his opinion the reason we HAVE a mess in Orthodoxy in the US and Canada is precisely not because we are thinking legalistically but because we have never followed the canons. The case is different with we Eastern Catholics since we have a central administration to solve these "problems". But pre Revolution the Russians were in charge and they had ethnic Arab bishops to assist them and that was good, in my opinion.

We don't fix the church by chucking its canonical tradition to get an "ecclesial reality check." The people who are doing canon law are all very aware of what the current situation is.

anastasios

Vas is das, "ecclesial reality check"? The only reality check that is of any importance, and of any value and endurance, will be the canonical tradition that churches will be organized according to geographical boundaries. No self-respecting or God fearing bishop is going to take a poll among his people saying, "are you comfortable with the canonical tradition of Orthodoxy?"

And again, the horse is already out of the barn. The OCA is autocephalous, the Antiochians are autonomous, the Greeks are pushing for more autonomy... in other words, it is only a matter of time. Whether it is my life time, or in the time of my children, or their children, Orthodox polity demands that there be one united Orthodox Church in this land (whatever the boundaries end up being), and those who understand the scriptures and the tradition of the church know this is so.

Today is not that day, but tomorrow is coming.

Priest Thomas

If there's a unification between jurisdictions in the United States, and the Patriarchates of Orthodoxy in Europe said "Ok let's withdraw from the American Continent and let the Autocephalous Church in Washington as Patriarchate for all the Continent", Orthodox Christians in Latin America, would certainly disagree with that.

I agree with your point here Anastasios. I believe the canonical situation began to unravel around the time of the Russian revolution, although there were supposedly some ethnic Greek and other parishes that had not regularized their relationship with the hierarchy yet by then.
People were coming, establishing parishes and avoiding the Russian bishops.

The Greek situation is particularly interesting as a story.

But I don't think it would be proper for the EC to have a common hierarchy unless the Orthodox accomplish it first. I wish the Eastern Catholic churches were all under one streamlined hierarchy regardless of ethnicity, it would be simple to do and makes sense to me on so many levels. But it's probably much too early for a move like that.

Michael

If the disagreement is being lumped together with North America, then I could see a legitimate concern.

Of course, it's not something we need to worry ourselves over right now.

PT

In theory the One City One Bishop rule is great!
But a lot has happened since then. Namely a very large growth of the Church.
Yes it is true that one diocese has one head.
Im always annoyed with those who pray for our "bishops" and always explain NO we pray for our "bishop" and his assistants.

That being said. How can we solve the dilema?
I would prepose that in a return to ecclesiastical communion the majority bishop is recognized as the Bishop of the diocese and the others are his auxilaries.

Same thing for the Metropolitans.
Stephanos I

Abuna Thomas,

I applaud the parish model that you describe. It is very much in line with comments Archbishop Joseph Tawil, of thrice-blessed memory, made 30 years ago (and which I have posted here on prior occasions) that time itself will erode the ethnicity that has been one of the hallmarks of our existence - and, so, if we are to continue to exist we must be open to and welcoming to others.

The Courage to be Ourselves [melkite.org]

That said, I don't think that in having such models we must all meld into one ecclesiastical unit that has no distinguishable entities, each with its own traditions. And, given the John Ireland scenario of a century ago, as an example of what can happen to the minority and its traditions in the face of a majority which cannot see beyond itself or admit of variation, my comfort level with the one bishop and minority vicar model is less than sanguine.

My personal view, especially as one whose area of special interest is the multiplicity of traditions presently encompassed by the 22 Churches sui iuris (and who could only hope that Rome would see fit to designate another 6 such) is admittedly biased. (I am one who would hope to observe even some minor distinctions in the liturgical presentation of the Eparchy of Lungro degli Italo-Albanesi from that of the Monastery of Grottoferrata, so that the Italo-Albanian and Italo-Greek traditions could still be distinguished one from the other.)

The beauty of diversity in ritual that has, as its common goal, worship of the One God can only, in my simple mind, amplify the joy that rises to His ears and, so, be more pleasing to Him. To conclude that such, instead, must ring out as a cacophony is to demand a vanilla flavor in the face of Howard Johnson's (my age is showing) 28 flavors - or Baskin-Robbins' 40; nice, but way too everyday.

God grant you many years,

Neil

I agree, and I think that the Orthodox model certainly allows for that. Given the growing pan-Orthodox nature of our parish, I've taken on quite a few traditions that are new to us Carpatho-Russians, such as singing the byzantine "Lamentations" with a Russian refrain (it works beautifully!), I also now throw rose petals during the singing of "Arise, O God" on Holy Saturday Liturgy. We also cut the Vasilopita on St. Basil's day. "Our people" have come to enjoy seeing these diverse traditions very much. And they have certainly not lost any of their own traditions, in fact, they have recovered many of them.

I think the idea that the loss of ethnic identity due to Orthodox unity under one bishop or even in one parish is a fallacy whose time has come to die.

Priest Thomas

Apologies Yuhannon,

I had misread your note.....I think I thought you were implying that you don't agree with Catholic dogma....rereading the piece, I now understand much better.

I still don't understand the part where you said that you differ from Roman interpretations of dogmas....I doubt that you mean that you think we are wrong.......I would think perhaps you mean that your Maronite tradition has a different way of looking at some things, but you also accept that we "Romans" are ok, too? That seems like the most usual and expected difference within Catholicism....

In fact, realizing that you are a Maronite is very exciting to me. I am particularly interested in knowing more about the unique Maronite tradition.... St Sharbel and all....

God bless you!

Unity in Christ