INTRODUCTION PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

Similar documents
Alexei Krindatch "The Conundrum of Uniting American Orthodox Church: How to Resolve the Puzzle?"

The Leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the Significance of Canon 28 of Chalcedon

LECTURE BY HIS EMINENCE ARCHBISHOP DEMETRIOS GERON OF AMERICA ORTHODOX THEOLOGY MAY 22, 2018 SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI

THE FOURTH PRE-CONCILIAR PAN-ORTHODOX CONFERENCE. Decision RULES OF OPERATION OF EPISCOPAL ASSEMBLIES IN THE ORTHODOX DIASPORA. Article 1. Article 2.

University of Fribourg, 24 March 2014

The Bishop as Servant of Catholic Renewal

Structure of the Orthodox Church

GUIDELINES FOR THE CREATION OF NEW PROVINCES AND DIOCESES

Guidelines for the Creation of New Provinces and Dioceses

Commentary and Executive Summary of Finding Our Delight in the Lord A Proposal for Full Communion between the Moravian Church and the Episcopal Church

MINUTES OF ASSEMBLY V

Structure of the Orthodox Church

Report of the Theological Task Force on Holy Orders The Anglican Church in North America Provincial Council June 22-26, 2015

The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation. Washington DC, October 28, 2017

GENERAL SYNOD WOMEN IN THE EPISCOPATE. House of Bishops Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests

ADDRESS OF THE CHAIRMAN HIS EMINENCE ARCHBISHOP DEMETRIOS OF AMERICA At the 6 th Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of

Agreed by the Anglican/Roman Catholic International Commission Canterbury, 1973

THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE

The Second Church Schism

ARTICLE V CHURCH ORGANIZATION

CONSTITUTION Adopted in Provincial Synod Melbourne, Florida July 22, 1998, And as amended in SOLEMN DECLARATION

Resolutions of ACC-4. Resolution 1: Anglican-Reformed Relations.

Fourth Synod of the Diocese of Bridgeport. Synodal Summary

Women Bishops in the Church of England: A Vote for Tolerance and Inclusion

The Discernment Process for Ordination to the Priesthood in the Diocese of Washington

PARISH BY-LAWS of Holy Trinity Orthodox Church Springfield, Vermont A Parish of the Diocese of New England The Orthodox Church in America (OCA)

Authority in the Anglican Communion

1. Canon Law is. 2. Goal of Canon Law is. 3. Types of Canon Law

AUTHORIZATION FOR LAY ECCLESIAL MINISTERS A CANONICAL REFLECTION. By Paul L. Golden, C.M., J.C.D.

WESTERN RITE ORTHODOXY AND THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER

DIOCESE OF SAN JOSE COUNCIL OF LAY ECCLESIAL MINISTERS APPROVED BY BISHOP MCGRATH JUNE 10, Page 1 of 11

Archdiocese of Armagh Role of Vicar Forane in Pastoral Plan (Canons ) and associated challenges

THE AFFIRMATION OF ST. LOUIS

C a t h o l i c D i o c e s e o f Y o u n g s t o w n

BY-LAWS OF THE DIOCESE OF THE SOUTH ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AMERICA

4. Issues with regard to particular denominations

DIOCESE OF SACRAMENTO PARISH PASTORAL COUNCIL GUIDELINES

The Canonical Status of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Orthodox Church

Timeline of Events

Discernment Information Packet for the Diaconate

CANON XVII. The Licensing of Clergy. I. The Issue of Licenses; Registers, Inhibitions and Transfers

CANON XIX. Relinquishment or Abandonment of the Ministry. 1. Relinquishment. 2. Abandonment

DRAFT Principles for Parish Finance Councils

A PEOPLE CALLED EPISCOPALIANS. A Brief Introduction to Our Peculiar Way of Life. The Rev. Dr. John H. Westerhoff. -Revised 1998-

Constitution Updated November 9, 2008

EXPLANATORY NOTE. Letter of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to Chinese Catholics. 27 May 2007

Table of Contents. Saint Nicholas Orthodox Church. Pittsfield, Massachusetts By-Laws. (Amended 2017)

THE CANONS OF THE ORTHODOX ANGLICAN COMMUNION. Denotation

Address of His Eminence Archbishop Nathaniel WELCOME

The Russian Orthodox Church and Contemporary Events: Dispelling the Myths

CANONS III.7.9-III.8.2

Parish Constitution and Bylaws

CANON III The Primate

EPISCOPAL MINISTRY IN THE SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CHURCH

Communion in Missional Communities

Working Draft of a Strategic Plan for the Orthodox Church in America (OCA)

III. Polity. Local Brotherhood

Organizational Structures of the Catholic Church

ARTICLE I.1-3 CONSTITUTION

U.S. Bishops Revise Part Six of the Ethical and Religious Directives An Initial Analysis by CHA Ethicists 1

CANONS III.1.1 III.3.2 TITLE III MINISTRY

The Rev. Canon Kathryn Kai Ryan Canon to the Ordinary and Chief Operating Officer Episcopal Diocese of Texas

The Affirmation of St. Louis Page 1 of 8

Liturgical Vestments and Clergy Dress: Thoughts on Appropriate Forms and Variety in Western Europe and America

CHURCH PLANTING AND THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH A STATEMENT BY THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS

GENERAL SYNOD. Resourcing Ministerial Education in the Church of England. A report from the Task Group

LUMEN GENTIUM. An Orthodox Critique of the Second Vatican Council s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. Fr. Paul Verghese

Called to Common Mission: Official Text

1. WCC will serve as the administrative focal point in WCC will involve and consult with conference participants.

CANON 8 Of Parish Status and Oversight Version Edited 5/23/18

CANON 8 Of Parish Status and Oversight - DRAFT September 2017

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

STATUTES FOR THE PRIVATE ASSOCIATION OF THE COMPANIONS OF THE TRANSFIGURED CHRIST

A Response of the Lexington Theological Seminary Disciples Faculty

Building Up the Body of Christ: Parish Planning in the Archdiocese of Baltimore

PATHWAY TO HOLY ORDERS EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF DALLAS

WHY A HIERARCHY? All baptized people make up the christian faithful. We are all equal in dignity. The Christian faithful are divided into two groups

The Inter-Anglican Standing Commission for Ecumenical Relations

Recommendations: Proposed Bylaw Related to Ordination in Unusual Circumstances

Contend Earnestly for the Faith Part 10

GUIDELINES FOR THE ORDINATION, APPOINTMENT AND TRANSFER OF CLERGY

CANONS THE DIOCESE OF THE EASTERN UNITED STATES

Lesson 20 Organization of the Association (Session 2)

CONSTITUTION CAPITOL HILL BAPTIST CHURCH WASHINGTON, D.C. of the

The United Reformed Church Consultation on Eldership The Royal Foundation of St Katharine. October 24th to 26th 2006.

Bishops. Its official name today is the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church

Additions are underlined. Deletions are struck through in the text.

The Episcopal Electoral Model in the Church in Wales and the Scottish Episcopal Church

Responding to God s Call: First Steps

Instructing us to preserve firmly in every respect all that the Orthodox. The Thyateira Confession*

DECREE CONCERNING THE PASTORAL OFFICE OF BISHOPS IN THE CHURCH

2017 Constitutional Updates. Based upon ELCA Model Constitution adopted 2016 at 14th Church Wide Assembly

Great Milwaukee Synod Interim Ministry Task Force Manual for Congregations in Transition Interim Ministry

An Anglican Covenant - Commentary to the St Andrew's Draft. General Comments

Ecumenical Relations Measure

INTERNATIONAL CHURCHES OF CHRIST A California Nonprofit Religious Corporation An Affiliation of Churches. Charter Affiliation Agreement

Policy and Instructions

The Holy See PASTORAL VISIT IN NEW ZEALAND ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE BISHOPS. Wellington (New Zealand), 23 November 1986

BRIEF: CWL Parish Council Spiritual Advisor Proper Introduction and Mandate Preamble

An Invitation to the Pope by the Œcumenical Patriarch *

Transcription:

The HOLY SYNOD of the ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AMERICA A RESPONSE From the HOLY SYNOD of BISHOPS of the ORTHODOX CHURCH in AMERICA to the Common Starting Point for Canonical and Regional Planning of the ASSEMBLY of CANONICAL ORTHODOX BISHOPS of the UNITED STATES March 15, 2015 INTRODUCTION The present document is offered to the Chairman and Secretary of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the United States by the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America as an expansion of the Preliminary Response which was offered by our Synod on September 17, 2014, during Assembly V in Dallas. This document contains more specific reference to the Common Starting Point for which all jurisdictions were asked to submit a red-line draft as a means to enhance the proposal, as requested by His Eminence, Archbishop Demetrios, the Chairman of our Assembly in his letter of October 15, 2014. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS The Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America is grateful to the Most Holy Patriarchs and Primates for initiating the process that has taken us from the Fourth Pre-Conciliar Pan Orthodox Conference in Chambésy, Switzerland in June of 2009 to our present expectation of a Great and Holy Council in 2016. We offer our wholehearted support for the goal expressed by the Pre-Conciliar Conference: that the problem of the Orthodox Diaspora be resolved as quickly as possible, and that it be organized in accordance with Orthodox ecclesiology, and the canonical tradition and practice of the Orthodox Church (Decision, 1.a). The Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America remains committed to the work of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America, recognizing the wisdom of the hierarchs gathered in Chambésy in proposing the transitional period of Episcopal Assemblies. We

note that the Assemblies were specifically created as a temporary situation that will prepare the ground for a strictly canonical solution of the problem which is defined as the existence of only one bishop in the same place (Decision, 1.b). We feel that it is important to point out that the current Starting Point that we are being asked to consider proposes the continuation of the present preparatory period which, according to the Decision of Chambésy, will not extend beyond the convening of the future Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church, so that it (the Council) can proceed with a canonical solution to the problem (Decision, 1.b). It seems to us that the present Starting Point neglects to address one of the Assembly s most important competencies: the preparation of a plan to organize the Orthodox of the Region on a canonical basis (Rules of Operation, Article 5.1.e). CANONICAL CONSIDERATIONS The canonical focus of the Chambésy process has rightly been on the well-known canon, I Nicea 8, which insists that there cannot be two bishops in the same city. We note that the context of this canon is not the number of bishops that can or cannot be in a city but the reconciliation of the Cathars to the Church. Further, within the broad ecclesiastical context (in which all interpretation of the canons must take place), this canon speaks less about literally one bishop in one city and more about one bishop presiding in one given area. When read in light of other canons, such as Apostolic 34 1 and Antioch 9 2, which relate to the question of primacy within a given province, it becomes almost self-evident that the fundamental canonical foundation of Orthodox ecclesiology is the unity of a local synod within a given geographical area under the presidency of a Primate. In light of this, we fully support the sentiments expressed by His All-Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew, in his Greeting to the Officers of the Episcopal Assembly of North and Central America (September 21, 2010): After all, what is most critical for us as Orthodox leaders is to apply the theology and traditions that we have received from the Church Fathers, ultimately to practice what we preach about the essential unity of the Body of Christ, which is never divided and which comprises many members even while constituting His One Church. 1 The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him [who is the first] do anything without the consent of all. For thus there will be unity and God will be glorified through the Lord, in the Holy Spirit. (Apostolic 34) 2 The bishops in every province must acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to show concern for the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in honor, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, (according to the ancient canon which prevailed from [the times of] our Fathers) or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own parish, to manage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent on his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.

It is precisely this application of Orthodox theology and tradition that undergirds our position and our general principle of approach to the question of canonical normalization in our region. Thus, the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America remains committed to the vision of a fully functioning and canonical local Church in our region and humbly suggests that the best solution for this region is one that assumes a canonically and administratively united local Church with a properly functioning Holy Synod as a starting point not an ending point. ISSUES OF PASTORAL PRAXIS AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY At the same time, the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America fully acknowledges that attention needs to be legitimately directed to the many questions of the pastoral praxis and administrative care of particular ethnic/cultural groups that have been raised by our brother bishops. We are confident that the universal dimension of the Orthodox Church, reflected in the diversity of the Orthodox presence in the United States, should remain a hallmark of our Church here. Is it not possible that an administratively united Church might offer a more effective means to collectively and in brotherly fashion assist the bishops of the Assembly in the care of the diversity of our faithful? Nevertheless, we question whether an appeal to certain canons with regard to the present existence of multiple jurisdictions on a single territory is legitimate. For example, Trullo 39 3 has been referenced as a justification for two separate hierarchies existing side by side on a single territory. However, a careful reading of this canon makes it evident that the Fathers of the Council were solving a canonical irregularity by submitting a Church, the existing Church of Cyzicus in the Hellespont, to Bishop John of Constantia and President of the Church of Cyprus, who together with his faithful were resettled in the Hellespont by the Emperor Justinian II. The canonical language is clear that the one hierarchy was subordinated to the other, precisely in order to maintain the principle of one bishop alone presiding in one city and territory. We would also point out that this canon makes reference to the bishop of New Justinianopolis as having the privileges, not of Constantinople (Κωνσταντινουπόλεως) but rather of the City of Constantia (Κωνσταντιέων πόλεως). 3 [Whereas] our brother and fellow minister (συλλειτουργοῦ) John, bishop (προέδρου) of island of Cyprus, both on account of barbarian incursions, and that they may be freed from servitude of the heathen, and may be subject alone to the sceptres of most Christian rule, have emigrated from the said island, by the providence of the philanthropic God, and the labor of our Christ-loving and pious Emperors; we decree that the privileges accorded to the see of the man aforenamed by the God-bearing Fathers who gathered first in Ephesus should remain unaltered, so that New Justinianopolis shall have the rights of the city of Constantia (Κωνσταντιέων πόλεως), and the bishop, most beloved of God, who shall be established in it shall preside over all the bishops of the province of the Hellespont, and shall be ordained by his own bishops in accordance with the ancient custom; for our God-bearing Fathers were determined that the usages of each Church should be maintained. The bishop of the city of Cyzicus shall be subordinate to the bishop of the aforesaid city of Justinianopolis, after the manner of all the other bishops under the said bishop John most beloved by God; and the latter, when the need arises, shall also ordain the bishop of this same city of Cyzicus.

In a similar way, the reference in I Constantinople 2 4 to the Churches of God among the barbarian people being administered according to the custom of the Fathers is given within the context of a canon that emphasizes the principle of one bishop in one city, together with the synodal structure (one synod, one province/diocese) and wherein the presidency (one president, one synod) is maintained throughout. In light of this, we ask our brothers of the Assembly to consider a broader question: For what purpose has God, in His infinite Wisdom and Providence, brought us together in this country? Is our answer a positive response to the Lord s commandment to preach the Gospel to every creature? Is our answer to look to the model provided by St. Tikhon of Moscow at the turn of the last century, and to share our spiritual wealth with others who are deprived of these blessings? In His High Priestly Prayer in St. John s Gospel, our Lord Jesus Christ prays to the Father and asks that they may be one, as we are [John 17:11]. How is this to be realized if we place limits on our responsibility to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? St. Paul tells the Galatians that There is neither Jew nor Greek... for you are all one in Christ Jesus [Gal. 3:28]. Does this not direct us to see no difference between the immigrant from Russia and the one from Indonesia, between the one from Africa and the one from Central America? Does this not direct us to seek out the Agnostic, the Protestant, the Buddhist or Taoist in the same way we seek out the marginal Orthodox Christian? For these reasons, the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America strongly urges that all efforts continue to be made by the Assembly to fulfill the expectation of the Most Holy Primates for the proposal of a concrete plan for canonical unity. We submit that the most clear and direct path to this goal is the establishment of a local autocephalous Orthodox Church here in our region and recommend this to the Assembly for their consideration as the most effective way to fulfill the exhortation of His All Holiness in his video address in Dallas: To move beyond what is mine and yours, to what is ours. GENERAL COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL STARTING POINT Nevertheless, we welcome the opportunity to offer our comments on the Common Starting Point. Before we do so, we would offer sincere thanks to Archbishop Nicolae, the Chairman of the Canonical Regional Planning Committee (CRPC), along with all its members and consultants, for their excellent initiative and work to date. We recognize the exhaustive research and complex reflection that were required to address the issue of canonical organization in our region. We also acknowledge the many hours of discussion 4 Diocesan bishops are not to intrude in churches beyond their own boundaries nor are they to confuse the churches: but in accordance with the canons, the bishop of Alexandria is to administer affairs in Egypt only; the bishops of the East are to manage the East alone (whilst safeguarding the privileges granted to the church of the Antiochenes in the Nicene canons); and the bishops of the Asian diocese are to manage only Asian affairs; and those in Pontus only the affairs of Pontus; and those in Thrace only Thracian affairs. Unless invited bishops are not to go outside their diocese to perform an ordination or any other ecclesiastical business. If the letter of the canon about dioceses is kept, it is clear that the provincial synod will manage affairs in each province, as was decreed at Nicaea. But the churches of God among barbarian peoples must be administered in accordance with the custom in force at the time of the fathers.

and review that have gone into the drafting of the initial 2013 proposal and the subsequent proposals presented to the most recent Assembly. It is therefore somewhat disappointing to be informed that the Common Starting Point was limited to the second proposal that was considered at Assembly V. Although no consensus was achieved on either of the proposals presented, it was our understanding (which is reflected in the transcript of our discussions) that both proposals would be sent back to the CRPC for further work. Although the proposal we are currently considering does contain some positive elements, it seems to us to lack a sense of urgency in terms of the needed effort to attain unity in our region. COMMENTS ON EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (pages 1-2) As such, we note that the Common Starting Point emphasizes the transitional nature of the process. This is certainly to be expected in a major endeavor such as this; however, we feel that this transitional nature of the process is emphasized to the detriment of the final goal of our common work. This aspect of the question was commented on at length in Dallas, revealing a wide range of opinions on the question of whether our focus should be on the process or on the final goal. As we state above, we feel that the focus should be on the final outcome (an autocephalous Church), without which any transitional effort at cooperation risks bearing little fruit. COMMENTS ON TRACK I (pages 2-6) 1. We wholeheartedly support the recommendation for all the Assembly Committees to increase their activity. 2. We acknowledge the complex issue of divergent practices among jurisdictions and certainly look forward to any direction that will be provided by the Great and Holy Council. However, it seems that a fundamental prerequisite for the resolution of many of these issues would be a Holy Synod with authority to implement any decisions reached on divergent practices within its territory. 3. It is unclear how the jurisdictional departments and organizations will come together under the auspices of the Assembly without a prior agreement on the end goal. 4. It is unclear how a single Orthodox media and communications office will be created under the Assembly. While the four specific items outlined are positive, they seem somewhat limited in terms of their long-term effectiveness. 5. We would fully support more Pan-Orthodox clergy gatherings. 6. We would support common standards for reviewing clergy candidates. 7. We would support common work for the supporting of missions. 8. We would question how such an Assembly Headquarters would be funded and how it would be staffed. 9. The question of common clergy benefits is a highly complex legal and financial one and would require intense discussions with the competent professionals involved in the existing programs.

10. The matter of Theological Education is also a highly complex question. We certainly support deeper levels of cooperation among the seminaries of all our jurisdictions. 11. While the idea of coordinated jurisdictional conventions sounds promising, we wonder whether this would simply give the outward appearance of unity, since each jurisdiction would hold its own meetings separately. 12. Central archives would also require substantial financial support and it is unclear how this would contribute to unity other than in a physical way. Once again, we find many of these points to have value and they are certainly worthwhile pursuing, but we wonder how much effect any of them will have without clear administrative and ecclesiastical oversight. COMMENTS ON TRACK II (pages 6-7) We would observe that this section is particularly vague concerning any concrete proposals for the manner in which reorganization will take place. We certainly agree that the fields must be tilled and the seeds planted and that we must all grow in unity and love and begin to operate as one body, even prior to reorganization into a single Church structure. We would argue, however, that it is much easier to grow in unity and love within a single Church structure, which we would believe has been the experience of each of the local autocephalous Churches throughout history. We also note that the task for developing a plan to transition from multiple jurisdictions to a single Church (par. 3) is precisely the task that has been presented to each of the Assemblies to begin with. Is it not possible for us, now, to arrive at such a plan by continuing the good work that has already been done by the CCRP, the legal committee and our canonists, as well as each of the bishops of our Assembly? COMMENTS ON CONCLUSION (pages 7) As a final comment, the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America would fully support the sentiments expressed in the first sentence of the conclusion: The common theme of this proposal is that, as Orthodox Christians in the United States, we must continue to strengthen the bond of love that unites us to the undivided Body of Christ, the Church. There is no doubt that all of us, bishops, clergy and faithful, must eagerly engage in this work. Our concern, as expressed earlier, is with the somewhat disengaged sentiment of the final sentence: As we come to know one another and learn to work together in practical ways, jurisdictional reorganization will develop as a natural result of our unity in Christ. While we certainly trust that the Holy Spirit works through us as we collaborate in so many positive ways, we are reminded of the very mandate of Chambésy, which was for each region to develop a plan. A plan, by definition, implies some work on our part, not a simple reliance on a natural development. His All

Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew, in his address to the members of the Executive Committee in 2010, thanked them for the effort they took to visit the Phanar in person, For, as the largest in terms of size and diversity, the Episcopal Assembly in America in many ways may serve as a significant example and an important model for what the Primates of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches envision for Orthodox unity throughout the world. This is precisely why every aspect and detail of your decisions and development bear a heavy burden and wider responsibility. Is it not time for us, as the Bishops of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the United States of America to take upon ourselves that heavy burden and wider responsibility by concentrating our efforts, not on a limited exercise in cooperation, but on a more ambitious (and difficult) goal of true unity on an administrative level? We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to the Assembly of Bishops and we look forward to our continuing collaboration and discussion of these important matters affecting the unity of the Orthodox Church in our region.