former USSR. He noted in particular the Milan Synod's apparently close ties with Metropolitan Vladimir (Cantarean) of Chisinau. More here.The day before Archbishop Abbondio's comments vis-a-vis the Milan Synod in Europe and the Moscow Patriarchate the Milan Synod's sister church in North America reaffirmed its opposition to communion with the mainstream Local Orthodox Churches. More on that here.
Pictured is Bishop Abbondio at a recent service in Milan, Italy.
CLARIFICATION: It is by now a misnomer to use such references as "the Milan Synod in North America". The Milan Synod has elevated one of our Archbishops and has given the American Dioceses & UK Deanery autonomy from the Europeans. While the Milan Synod is a "mother church", The Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of N. & S. America & the British Isles (official name) under His Beatitude Metropolitan John are not bound by the directions and decisions made in Milan.
ReplyDeleterespectfully, In Christ,
monk Symeon
Fr. Symeon, I thank you for the clarification, but do you really want me to write "The Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of North and South America and the British Isles" every time I refer to the Milan Synod's sister church in North America? (I've heard that the transfer of the UK deanery is not final.) Is there something shorter that would be acceptable to you that at the same time would indicate to readers your existence as part of what everyone refers to as the Milan Synod despite its longer official name?
ReplyDeleteLOL, indeed the name is a mouthful. Since Metropolitan John have thus far deliberately avoided shortening the name (for immediate future)I cannot give you permission to use a shorter version (as much as I would like). One of our detractors is using "Metropolia of the Americas and British Isles" (MAB). I have seen Fr Dcn Joseph use in his signature "Autonomous Metropolia of North America" but this is less accurate. I have used "Anglo-American Metropolia" with similar inaccuracy. One that I suggested to Vladyka was "OCABI" for Orthodox Church of the Americas & British Isles. I wish I could be more helpful. We all admit the official name is a mouthful. Perhaps this has given you some ideas of your own; as long as it doesn't look pro-Milan.
ReplyDeleteForgive me,
monk Symeon
http://hermitage-journal.blogspot.com/
No forgiveness necessary! I appreciate the input! Would the official acronym be AOMNSABI? ;-)
ReplyDeleteI believe it is also incorrect to say we are part of the 'Milan Synod', since that ended sometime ago. The American Church has been independent defacto, and is now dejure, and it is confusing, if not disingenuous to make such a reference.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to make a reference you should have said "the Milan Synod's Sister Church in the America's has condemned any attempt to concelebrate" or something to that effect. Otherwise, it makes it look like we're just some people out there under Milan, which we aren't and haven't been for a little while; espeically before this statement was made Abundius.
If you would like further clarification on this matter, plsease contact me at fraugustine431@gmail.com after that, I would ask that you delete this section of the comment that has my email address, so as not to attract spamers.
Actually, I just use the name "the Autonomous Metropolia" or simply "the Metropolia". I hate all these acronyms to be frank.
ReplyDeleteAND, FATHER SYMEON, my signature is the following:
ReplyDelete":In Christ,
:Deacon Joseph Suaiden
:St Eulalia Orthodox Mission Chapel, Yonkers NY
:A Mission of the Orthodox Metropolia in North America
:Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of North and South America and the British Isles"
In other words, "A mission IN NORTH AMERICA".
Don't publicly misrepresent me again, please.
"Some time ago" - as though you've just been around for ages like Georgia or Bulgaria :-). I will correct the above vis-a-vis North America though - my apologies for the faulty reference post-tomos.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the thoughts Fr. Joseph, but there are other autonomous metropolias in the world (the ROCOR, the other ROCORs, Japan, the Ukraine, et cetera) and I only know of one common reference to 'the Metropolia' (what is now the OCA), so the search goes on ;-)!
I kind of like AOMNSABI myself - it sounds like the acronyms my OCF used to come up with for our hypothetical Old Calendrist synods.
...and that last was extremely uncharitable of me :-/. My apologies!
ReplyDeleteThank You Deacon Joseph for elucidating your signature line better than I.
ReplyDeleteGod forgives!
Yes, it is indeed a lovely signature paragraph :-). Forgive me also for not saying that before now!
ReplyDeleteOh, for crying out loud. I was trying to point out I was being misquoted. Perhaps, Father, I expressed my frustration too loudly (because you often misattribute things to me) but I really could care less what anyone thinks of my signature.
ReplyDeleteI am aware the OCA used to use the term "Metropolia", but they officially rejected that title in 1970 if I remember correctly. That makes me like it more!
And Jon Marc, thanks for the kind words (and the not so kind words); there is nothing to forgive. Generally, people in official Orthodoxy think of what happens in Old Calendar Synods as a joke, and that's really ok with me. I think it interesting that worldly measures are the yardstick of "officialdom", but I shudder that the canons, especially when it comes to ecumenism, have been completely forgotten.
If I'm not mistaken the change to OCA was considered in the mid-1960s as the Metropolia shifted to using the English language (for the most part) in the services. When the first All-American Council was held in 1970 the name change was approved, but it was not a repudiation of the old name - we simply moved on. I think that if you start writing about "the Metropolia" people will think you're writing history - just my two cents though :-).
ReplyDeleteThe canons are an interesting matter. I'm continually amazed that our current ecumenical patriarch studied them so extensively. On the other hand, the randomness of which canons are applied when is also amazing in a way (both inside and outside mainstream Orthodoxy). I'm certainly not a fan of the extreme economy following by some, but I think we're in a healthier place than the Roman Church with its standardized version of everything (canons included) is.
And I'm grateful for economy - many would like to turn our canons and praxis into a new Law instead of using them as guides for our salvation.
ReplyDeleteOk, but "don't pray with heretics" can never be "economized" into "do pray with heretics". Maybe private people can have some economy if given by the Bishop, say, for saying grace with their heterodox parents, but not "let's invite Cardinal Novusordo over for a joint prayer."
ReplyDeleteWeren't the canons dealing with heretics issued in situations where they had already deliberately broken with the Catholic Church and were themselves walled off from her? When it comes to Roman Catholics I feel that they should certainly apply, but when it comes to Evangelical Protestants and others who have been separated from the Church moreso by the winds of history and politics than by deliberate schism some economy might not be out of place. But not when it comes to "blended" sort of services they seem to enjoy at the WCC or participating in the National Day of Prayer service of course - I still don't understand why we bother with either things.
ReplyDeleteSorry about the delay...
ReplyDeleteI would say that the 'rule' of the canons themselves and the application of the canons (which can be seen in the canonical epistles) are two different things. What you are speaking of above is really more the second case than the first. Heresy is undoubted in either case, but your question is a question of "willfulness" more than heresy. Remember that the thinking of the Tubingen theologians was precisely what you are detailing above, but we remember the disastrous result in the correspondence with Patriarch Jeremias. We can use mercy in the application of the canons, but we can't operate, without sufficient historical proof, under the assumption that those who have been completely separated from Orthodoxy for centuries have preserved accurately the Orthodox faith.
As early as St Ignatius we find the call to be separate from those who reject the teaching of the Eucharistic Body and Blood; there is not a question as to whether they misunderstood from childhood or have actively rejected the doctrine. "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."
We forget that people were able to work and live side by side without "joint prayer" for hundreds of years before the advent of the heresy of ecumenism made such "services" an "implied premise". There is nothing unfriendly or cruel about it, as is often implied. I get along with most folks I meet. But when it comes to faith, making yourself clear is not a sin, but a responsibility. And to be clear, belonging to the One, Holy, Catholic Apostolic Church is an essential part of being saved. I'm not going to beat someone over the head with it, but I will also not allow the falsehood of "universal truth in all faiths" trump the teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
You're arguing with someone else, because I'm one of the last people who would say that Evangelical Protestants have preserved the Orthodox Faith :-). I stand by what I wrote though - mercy is always appropriate, especially in dealing with people whose ancestors separated themselves from a church that had already itself broken with Orthodoxy.
ReplyDeleteWell, I am not really trying to *argue*, simply pointing out that a "joint service", condemned by the canons, is just not an act of mercy.
ReplyDelete