I was going to wait until after I listened to the conference completely. The material proved to be too much for me to consume in a short time, so I ask you to go for a listen. Metropolitan Philip (who I am listening to now) was quite good and will deserve another listen after I have finished the others. He smashes Canon 28 of Chalcedon, SCOBA, the continued view of the US as the diaspora ("Most of the people in my archdiocese, even including the new immigrants, have no intention of returning home..."), ethno-phyletism, and the Patriarchate of Constantinople's "green" policy. Here is a choice quote of his:
In essence: If you want to claim control over the diaspora based on Canon 28 then do something instead of worrying about the environment while the Orthodox Church in the diaspora have real problems that need solving."Those that support Canon 28 and insist that unity cannot be discussed are naive and bury their heads in the sand. While they take delight in holding lectures and conferences on the environment - and I love the environment, I have nothing against that at all - the witness and mission of the Church is being ignored. We have so many problems in the Orthodox Church today and yet they show so much concern for the environment, and rightly so, but let's put our house in order."
He also wants a meeting body for the Orthodox in a place like Geneva so that problems can be resolved as he fears tears in Orthodoxy if they try and meet in an ecumenical fashion on even small issues. This is an idea that has been floated around before and talk has even gone on about moving the Patriarchate of Constantinople there.
Additionally, he considers the Orthodox jurisdictions in North and South America, Europe, and Asia to be in violation of the Councils because they clearly state one bishop to one diocese without overlapping as they do along ethnic lines. He states unequivocally that this is "phyletism" and "heretical."
Posts
Well, no one can knock +Philip for pulling punches. Of course, it's one thing to complain about overlapping jurisdictions and something quite else to do something about it. I have yet to hear of a single hierarch who has decried the situation offering to step aside and let one of the other overlapping bishops take control of the diocese. In fact, I can't even think of a single priest or layman who has tossed an ill word at the phenomenon propose that their bishop is the one who should move. It's difficult then not to see these sorts of diatribes as posturing of the worst sort, an empty show of wanting "canonicity" without any consequences.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, let me also say that bishops standing down in areas where there is real overlap would probably create a lot of initial problems. With there being anything but solid relations between SCOBA and the more traditional groups in Orthodoxy, it's unlikely that adherents to one are going to be immediately pleased with oversight from the other. There's probably some reason for jurisdictions to worry that the reduction of their hierarchs will mean--in a purely political sense--a loss of influence and control over what "American Orthodoxy" looks like.
Well said. The difficulty does seem to be that intermediary step towards the eventual goal of a canonically valid American Orthodox Church. Given that a lot of the possibilities for that first step require a better familiarity with the personalities of the hierarchs involved, I am unequal to the task of picking a preferred direction. Somehow a retiring bishop will need to have his jurisdiction ceded to that next step, but will that next person be chosen on an EU "rotating presidency" model or something different. I simply don't know.
ReplyDelete