From the blog Monomakhos, a post entitled "Cracks in the coalition?"
Well, it looks like the Episcopal Assembly’s high point was the first year it met seems to me. Sixty-five bishops attended if memory servers. Every year since it has gotten fewer and fewer attendees. True, the Central American and Canadian bishops went off and formed their own Assemblies (as was logical). But even then we’re talking nine or ten bishops at most subtracted from the initial sixty-five. Also, the OCA has three vacancies, so that leaves at least fifty who should have been there.
According to the Assembly’s website, there were “more than thirty bishops there.” (The next day they revised it upward to “more than thirty-five.”) Well, that’s pretty pathetic if you ask me. It reminds me of the pettifogginess that we are used to getting from the GOA in past; i.e. “Archbishop Demetrios, spiritual leader of over 1.5 million Orthodox Christians,” or “Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, spiritual head of 350 million Orthodox Christians throughout the world,” etc. Such special pleading is unbecoming of a mature Church. Regardless, this downward trajectory was predicted five years ago by many on this blog (as well as others.)
Now please understand, we may just be talking about growing pains here. Last year ROCOR more or less said “thanks, but no thanks” to the entire process and the patriarchate of Antioch ordered all its bishops worldwide to pull out of all Assemblies. They’re now back, whether chastened or with some concessions in their back packet I honestly can’t say. It is to be remembered that they pulled out not because of the process, but over the uncanonical actions of the the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in Qatar. Still, the optics of this last conference didn’t look good. Besides the radical diminution in the number of the bishops, the Question-and-Answer session was heavily scripted. Only five bishops were chosen to respond to some carefully-screened softball questions. And none of the bishops were from the OCA.
This is not usually the sign of a going concern. If I had to guess, I’d say that some bishops –and jurisdictions–are voting with their feet.
According to the Assembly’s website, there were “more than thirty bishops there.” (The next day they revised it upward to “more than thirty-five.”) Well, that’s pretty pathetic if you ask me. It reminds me of the pettifogginess that we are used to getting from the GOA in past; i.e. “Archbishop Demetrios, spiritual leader of over 1.5 million Orthodox Christians,” or “Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, spiritual head of 350 million Orthodox Christians throughout the world,” etc. Such special pleading is unbecoming of a mature Church. Regardless, this downward trajectory was predicted five years ago by many on this blog (as well as others.)
Now please understand, we may just be talking about growing pains here. Last year ROCOR more or less said “thanks, but no thanks” to the entire process and the patriarchate of Antioch ordered all its bishops worldwide to pull out of all Assemblies. They’re now back, whether chastened or with some concessions in their back packet I honestly can’t say. It is to be remembered that they pulled out not because of the process, but over the uncanonical actions of the the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in Qatar. Still, the optics of this last conference didn’t look good. Besides the radical diminution in the number of the bishops, the Question-and-Answer session was heavily scripted. Only five bishops were chosen to respond to some carefully-screened softball questions. And none of the bishops were from the OCA.
This is not usually the sign of a going concern. If I had to guess, I’d say that some bishops –and jurisdictions–are voting with their feet.
Moreover, the video address by Patriarch Bartholomew leads me to believe that things aren’t all that rosy as far as the Great Synod is concerned. 2016 is, as they say in politics, an eternity away. If (as rumored) it is true that Istanbul plans to grab all of Ukraine as its canonical territory then we could be talking schism here. This card may have been taken out of the Phanar’s deck however. The EU/US mishandling of Ukraine has been so disastrous that the Maidan Junta has lost all legitimacy. The plan was that the Ukrainians would rise up as one in indignation against the evil Putin leaving the patriarchate of Moscow with ashes in its mouth. Well, the people of the eastern part of Ukraine wouldn’t play along with the West’s schemes. Now, if Bartholomew pulled a stunt like that the outrage would be deafening.
Anyway, that’s all speculation. For its part, the Holy Synod of the OCA has issued its own response to the latest Assembly (Hat-tip to Timothy Wearing). You can read it here for yourself and come to your own conclusions (see here). To be honest, I didn’t think that Syosset had the courage to issue such a declaration given its internal –and self-inflicted–troubles. Its census is pathetic and its financial situation is dire. Then there is the case of Fr Leonid Kishkovsky, whose fervent desire has always been to bring the OCA under the patriarchate of Constantinople. Perhaps his star has fallen? Perhaps Syosset is signalling Moscow that a rapprochment is possible. We shall see.
Regardless, the OCA has laid down some significant markers regarding what an American Orthodox Church should look like. I agree with its declaration. Despite its many foibles, somebody in Syosset understands what a mature ecclesiology looks like and the neither-fish-nor-fowl-make-it-up-as-we-go Plan A that Bartholomew and his GOA minions have concocted is dead in the water if the OCA sticks to its guns. The question now is, are they going to hold to the autocephalist position (Plan B) or are they going to fold like a house of cards?
Anyway, that’s all speculation. For its part, the Holy Synod of the OCA has issued its own response to the latest Assembly (Hat-tip to Timothy Wearing). You can read it here for yourself and come to your own conclusions (see here). To be honest, I didn’t think that Syosset had the courage to issue such a declaration given its internal –and self-inflicted–troubles. Its census is pathetic and its financial situation is dire. Then there is the case of Fr Leonid Kishkovsky, whose fervent desire has always been to bring the OCA under the patriarchate of Constantinople. Perhaps his star has fallen? Perhaps Syosset is signalling Moscow that a rapprochment is possible. We shall see.
Regardless, the OCA has laid down some significant markers regarding what an American Orthodox Church should look like. I agree with its declaration. Despite its many foibles, somebody in Syosset understands what a mature ecclesiology looks like and the neither-fish-nor-fowl-make-it-up-as-we-go Plan A that Bartholomew and his GOA minions have concocted is dead in the water if the OCA sticks to its guns. The question now is, are they going to hold to the autocephalist position (Plan B) or are they going to fold like a house of cards?
Posts
First of all, *Patriarch Bartholomew (I realize this is quoted from the blog, but it still irks me...like a bishop or not, one should respect the office of the bishop).
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I kind of think this all much ado about nothing. It's not surprising. Things in Orthodoxy move at the speed of a glacier. The "decisions" that came out of this year's assembly did not surprise me. They haven't done anything in years and I don't expect them to anytime soon. This is par for us.
As for Constantinople trying to grab Ukraine, when did that rumor start? I'm not sure what basis they would use. It doesn't make much sense. Meh, it's all politics as usual. The downside of having humans as part of the Church. The Church may be perfect, but we make sure to remind that humans in it are not.
As for the OCA, I'm still a big advocate of the OCA going back under Moscow. Way too young and immature to be autocephalous. Orthodoxy in America is not ready to be autocephalous. While we're at it, can we revoke all autonomy out of the US, too? Seriously. We're not ready for it. We're too immature and entirely too American to be allowed to take care of ourselves. We need more time to mature.
Nonsense!
ReplyDeleteThe number of churches in the Apostolic Age was at least 44. Certainly, they were too young, no? How about the Latin Captivity of the Russian Church and the Lutheran Captivity of the Greek Church, or the dual-headed monstrosity that the Patriarchate of Constantinople had become under the Ottomans? Why are they still in the diptychs?
Nonsense!
ReplyDeleteThe number of churches in the Apostolic Age was at least 44. Certainly, they were too young, no? How about the Latin Captivity of the Russian Church and the Lutheran Captivity of the Greek Church, or the dual-headed monstrosity that the Patriarchate of Constantinople had become under the Ottomans? Why are they still in the diptychs?