[arerrurrY]

The ancient patriarchates are all deserving of great honor but have been overtaken by historical events and it is now time to be realistic about that and adapt. Just as Constantine left Rome for Asia Minor, it is time for the EP to consider moving to New York.

I have told you Owen, DC is the place for the EP if you want it moved. With all the apocalyptic movies that take place and are staged in NYC we do not want it moved there. :P

[immoceefe]

Well, to begin with, there are hardly any Orthodox Christians in Western Europe, and America is where all the money is.

[jeaccatty]

It was really hard to press the "approve posts" button here, but I did anyway. I would suggest that perhaps we can give the politics a rest during Holy Week (hey, its just one week and we have lots more important things to do) and take up the discussion again later.

Fr David Moser

[finnmontserrat]

Just as Constantine left Rome for Asia Minor, it is time for the EP to consider moving to New York.

God forbid! I'd rather the Phanar sink into the sea than move to the other side of the Atlantic.

[mensforyouthis]

Just as Constantine left Rome for Asia Minor, It split the Church Constantinople is in Europe; the Church cannot be split.

Andreas (who has given up pedantry and verbosity for the Great Fast).

[CaseyFan]

Do we want the EP in New York? I shudder to think of it. Your post brings up the point that we should thank God for the divisions in the Church precisely as a protection against another Pope. Too much power in one place is dangerous.



Undoubtedly if the American church did unite under a new EP we could be almost guarenteed another round of persecutions as God's way of keeping us humble and keeping things from going sour spiritually. The current divisions force us to exercise more patience, longsuffering and humility. An attitude that is very hard for people with power to maintain.

Have you met the EP? I have. And it seems he is not that eager to power... Instead he has got prizes for his engagement of protecting the environment in the world as gods creation, especially around and in the Black Sea. But I am not into politics.

To Owens last post I think I will respond until later. Have a blessed Holy week all of you.

Peter

[kjanyeaz1]

I am sorry ... this thread is confusing me a little. I see many "people" based opinions and wonder where the humility has gone?

Have most people forgotten that it is not US that decides the plans for the Orthodox church but the Holy Trinity through the Holy Spirit?

Especially in this God blessed week ... where the Bridegroom prepares to be sacrificed for OUR sins ... let us not forget to show some humility in WHO it is that establised the BODY of the Church and WHO it is that decides WHAT and IF happens to the Church ...

V.

[QXCharles]

God forbid! I'd rather the Phanar sink into the sea than move to the other side of the Atlantic.

The Phanar is a district in Constantinople (Istanbul), why would you want it to sink into the sea? If you meant the Patriarchal offices, I might ask the same question?

[JessiPollo]

Constantinople is in Europe; the Church cannot be split.

Andreas (who has given up pedantry and verbosity for the Great Fast).

My dear Andreas, if you wish to pedantically precise, do let's remember that Constantinople is in both Europe and Asia. It's one of very few cities that sits on two continents.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[VYholden]

I am sorry ... this thread is confusing me a little. I see many "people" based opinions and wonder where the humility has gone?

Have most people forgotten that it is not US that decides the plans for the Orthodox church but the Holy Trinity through the Holy Spirit?

Especially in this God blessed week ... where the Bridegroom prepares to be sacrificed for OUR sins ... let us not forget to show some humility in WHO it is that establised the BODY of the Church and WHO it is that decides WHAT and IF happens to the Church ...

V.

Indeed, dear Vasiliki !!!

It is scandalous and hypocritical of any of us as CHRISTIANS to speak ill and with heartfilled malice about our clerics and hierarchs, or even of hierarchs to speak that way of each other. (Kyrie Eleison)) We are told by the Church not to judge!!!

Last night, my priest in NY had a little sermon of his thoughts after the Bridegroom service. He said that we are hypocrites if we (clergy and laity) do not practice what we preach..

(I had never met a priest who asked private forgiveness of lay people until him...and this one act had a great impact on my spiritual life and growth--because, as he also said last night--our actions speak louder than words in preaching the gospel!)

May our Lord God forgive us all!

Alice

[mensforyouthis]

My dear Andreas, if you wish to pedantically precise, do let's remember that Constantinople is in both Europe and Asia. It's one of very few cities that sits on two continents.

INXC, Dcn Matthew And if I may venture to be yet more precise, my dear Reverend Deacon Matthew, while this is true of Istanbul, Constantinople before its fall in 1453 was defined by the Theodosian walls. And today the bits that matter to us - the Phanar and Aghia Sophia - are in Europe.

Andreas (who abhors pedantry).

[Kamendoriks]

I think in the spirit of the season and with Holy Week going on, I should be mindful (thanks to Bridegroom Matins) that the Church is Christ's bride and not ours. With all the politics involved, I would just make a mess of it.

Have a good Holy Week, folks.

[biannaruh]

From November 2007:

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showth...54383#poststop

Food for thought.

[finnmontserrat]

The Phanar is a district in Constantinople (Istanbul), why would you want it to sink into the sea? If you meant the Patriarchal offices, I might ask the same question?

I meant that I believe an EP based in America would be worse than no EP at all. Thankfully, I don't believe there is any risk of either of those happening.

[eskimosik]

I can understand why some would argue for the EP to relocate to be free of Turkish and Islamic oppression, but if done shouldn't it be somewhere as close as possible, like Cyprus or Greece?

[mensforyouthis]

Since he has jurisdiction over parts of Greece, that would make some sense if he had to move, e.g. Rhodes.

[CaseyFan]

Well, to begin with, there are hardly any Orthodox Christians in Western Europe, and America is where all the money is.

The point is that there are orthodox christians in Western Europe. There werent many orthodox christians in the beginning either. It has to grow. That is what God wants and we have to work for it. As Herman says a bishop cannot just leave his duty where he is. The Ecumenical patriarchs duty is in Western Europe among other places.

We can not move the ecumenical patriarchate to NYC where Apostle Andrew never put his feet. As we cant move the holy Sepulchre church bit for bit to NYC (Manhattan?? ), just because there is the money, and that there are few orthodox christians in Palestine. We must support them until Jesus arrives... And it is the same with the patriarchate in Constantinople, (except that I doubt Jesus will arrive in Istanbul when he comes back.) You know that we must support them where they are by heart, if you think about it, I suppose... Jesus asks in Luke if he will find faith on earth when he comes back, and we must do what we can to support that. He thought of the whole world when he said that, but what about Jerusalem? And Istanbul? We must be realistic: it will not be easy to keep orthodoxy there, (I suppose)...

Some weeks ago the Russian Orthodox church asked the ecumenical patriarch Bartholomew to lead the burial of patriarch Alexey. And they did as they should in Russia. Because he was his patriarch actually. So it is not just a formality to be first among equals. When the ecumenical patriarch dies another patriarch must bury him, I suppose.

And OCA must do the same as the russians when their metropolitan dies. But I doubt they will do that. I think they are closer to the Russian Patriarchate. So that is my speculation. But it would have been most natural to ask the Ecumenical Patriarchate in their case when it happens that the metropolitan of OCA dies. If it is possible it would have been the natural thing to do.

Christ is risen!

[DzjwMKo5]

. But it would have been most natural to ask the Ecumenical Patriarchate in their case when it happens that the metropolitan of OCA dies. If it is possible it would have been the natural thing to do.

Christ is risen!

Indeed He is Risen! Why would it be natural for the OCA to ask the Ecumenical Patriarch to bury the Metropolitan? Last I checked, the EP believes the OCA is still under the Moscow Patriarchate. Even if the EP recognized the Autocephaly of the OCA, the OCA is still the spiritual child of the Moscow Patriarchate, so wouldn't it be natural in either case for the OCA to ask the Patriarch of Moscow to bury the Metropolitan (if they asked anyone at all)? And I believe that Metropolitan (now Patriarch) Kiril was preciding at His Holiness's burial. The EP was an honored guest.

[jeaccatty]

And I believe that Metropolitan (now Patriarch) Kiril was preciding at His Holiness's burial. The EP was an honored guest.

This corresponds to the funeral of Metropolital Laurus of ROCOR. Metropolitan (then Archbishop) Hilarion was the chief celebrant, however, Metropolitan Onuphry of Chernovitsa and Bukovino was an honored guest and representative of the Russian Church. Although Metropolitan Onuphry was senior and therefore the "rightful" chief celebrant, that honor was yielded to Metr. Hilaron and thus Metr. Lavr was buried by his own flock.

Fr David Moser

[mensforyouthis]

Relevant to this thread are the following extracts from the judgement in Dean v Burne (see thread, 'Recent court decision):

35. An important aspect of Bishop Basil's approach to this is to be found in paragraphs 10 to 12 of his third witness statement in which he found a measure of agreement between his views and those of Professor Evans:
"10. The position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is that it is the sole legitimate jurisdiction in Western Europe [and, presumably, North America: my addition], with the power to allow by 'economy' the existence on its territory of 'diaspora' jurisdictions that are cared for pastorally by their so-called 'Mother Churches'. The canons of the Church do not allow the simultaneous existence of two churches on the same territory. This latter point is effectively accepted by Professor Evans in paragraph 27 of her Statement.
11. The position of the Russian Church is that it can establish dioceses outside its own canonical territory to take care of its own national flock wherever they move abroad throughout the world. I have called this 'radical autocephaly' in the past and the Ecumenical Patriarch has called it 'autocephalicism'. In any case, it is contrary to the fundamental principles of ecclesiology, which make it clear that all local dioceses and local churches are strictly defined territorially. This point is effectively admitted by [Professor] Evans in paragraph 46 of her Statement.
12. Thus those members of the London Parish and the Diocese of Sourozh who moved to the Ecumenical Patriarchate were doing what the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church requires."
36. The key point, concerned with the legitimacy of his move and the move of those among the clergy and body of worshippers who followed him from the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate to that of the Episcopal Patriarchate, is to be found in his comments on paragraph 42 of Professor Evans' statement. In that paragraph Professor Evans said this:
"With regard to the Diocesan Proceedings, there is a connected issue as to the nature and status of the alleged successor body to the Diocese, namely the Episcopal Vicariate of Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Great Britain and Ireland … specifically, whether the Vicariate has any geographic or functional equivalence to the Diocese. A diocese is a fundamental unit of Church order. A vicariate is, by definition, an artificial construct intended to provide for the pastoral care of a body of the faithful in an ecclesiologically temporary or unsatisfactory situation in the absence of normal arrangements for a diocese to have a bishop."
37. Commenting on that passage, Bishop Basil said this in his third witness statement:
"33. …The Vicariate exists as part of a larger Archdiocese of Western Europe, whose history and spiritual life was shaped by the same influences that shaped the lives of the Diocese of Sourozh under Metropolitan Anthony. No matter how much authority is given to the bishop in charge of a vicariate, he will never be a proper diocesan bishop."
Bishop Basil then explained, in paragraph 34, that Professor Evans' statement "points up the anomaly of having 'overlapping' dioceses in Western Europe" and then adds:
"No amount of 'metaphorical and mystical unity' can change the non-canonical nature of this situation. It is contrary to fundamental canons and is not accepted, except by 'economy', by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which has jurisdiction in Western Europe (but only for the Orthodox), as the locum tenens of the Pope of Rome."
He returns to the same issue in paragraphs 39 and 40 of his third witness statement where he states that "the move to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1931 was correct canonically, while the move to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1946 was contrary to the canons" (see paragraph 39) and in the ensuing paragraph:
"…The belonging of any particular diocese to the Orthodox Church is dependant upon the acceptance of its bishop as a person into the appropriate synod of bishops, in this case through Archbishop Gabriel of Comana in Paris, who is part of the synodical structure of the Ecumenical Patriarch which has jurisdiction in Western Europe. As the synod of bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate has no jurisdiction outside the borders of Russia, the move was from a non-canonical to a canonical position."
38. The point, as I understand it, is that the Moscow Patriarchate had no right to exercise its jurisdiction over Orthodox Christians worshipping outside the borders of Russia (ie the territories historically regarded as within the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate) and that, given the schism between Orthodoxy and the Church in the West dating back to 1054, jurisdiction over Orthodox worshippers in Western Europe falls to the Ecumenical Patriarch as locum tenens of the Patriarch of Rome. (This, needless to say, is a matter of controversy between the two Patriarchates.) It is this view which in part, as I follow matters, informed Bishop Basil's approach, which he regards as canonically justified, when he took the important decision in May 2006 to move from the Moscow to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and did so without obtaining his "release" from the Moscow Patriarchate and was followed by a number of the clergy and lay members of the Church.

If Bishop Basil holds these views, why did he ever serve MP in Britain?