Posted by Leo on 3/26/2008, 3:55 pm, in reply to "question"
Well, the Romanian Patriarchal Archdiocese (Nicolae) already says it's "autonomous," since 1974. But if you're equating having a North American synod of some sort, with having the freedom to move towards other jurisdictions, I'd point to the GOA and UOC as counter-examples.
Also, I don't know if it makes a difference, but Albania's Archbishop Anastasios didn't serve that Liturgy, he was only present there. See the photo of him receiving Communion only wearing an epitrachelion (stole)(?). I believe Nikon (OCA) presided since it was his Cathedral and its anniversary so to speak, and Ilia (EP) concelebrated, with other OCA Albanian priests. Although really, I don't see Ilia's two parishes adding that much to the picture, nor C'ople letting them go willingly to Albania, nor Anastasios taking them without C'ople's pleasure, since C'ople 'made' him, plus he's still an ethnic Greek bishop, and their loyalty to the given structures in that part of the world tends to be pretty strong (unless you're the late Christodoulos!).
Although there was that statement from Abp Nathaniel last year calling for resistance to the idea of integrating the OCA Bulgarian Diocese into the territorial dioceses after Abp Kyrill's repose, a statement that didn't seem to line-up with the idea of Orthodox Unity as fostered by this website. But what do I know?! But Metr. Joseph (Bulgarian Patr.) is on my A-list because he was one of just four Bishops who replied to my pre-Chicago letter about enhancing regional cooperation! Actually I thought I heard he was considered a potential future Patriarch, and is very spiritual. Maybe his diocese could be merged into the OCA Bulgarians, under himself? And maybe the OCA could use some 'fresh blood' like him?
Two years ago when the Romanian talks broke down, Nathaniel told the OCA Synod he believed it would be counterproductive to unity here to take his jurisdiction out of the OCA's common Synod, eg, back to their old Patriarchate, and that made alot of sense to me. Here's from the Synod minutes from Tues., May 23, 2006:
HEARD: Archbishop NATHANIEL gave a report on the work of the Joint Commission of the Romanian Episcopate of The Orthodox Church in America and the Romanian Archdiocese of the Romanian Patriarchate. He gave some historical background about how this Joint Commission came to be. He also explained that the purpose of the Commission was to reflect on the present relationship between the Episcopate and the Patriarchate.
After receiving the reports and the reflections of the members of the Commission and the conclusions that were arrived at, it was clear that any proposed canonical unity would require either the Romanian Episcopate of The Orthodox Church in America to merge with the Romanian Archdiocese and as such, be administratively united as one diocese of the Romanian Patriarchate, or it would require the Romanian Archdiocese to merge with the Romanian Episcopate of The Orthodox Church in America and as such, be administratively united as one diocese in The Orthodox Church in America. In this context, which had no possible mutually agreeable solution, he decided that the ROEA Commission had completed its work and was dissolved.
He announced this in a letter sent by first class mail to all communicants of the Episcopate presently included in list of addresses kept by the Episcopate.
Archbishop KYRILL expressed the gratitude of the Holy Synod for the clear letter, and fine pastoral approach used by Archbishop NATHANIEL in dealing with this matter. He also noted that he was informed that the Episcopate monasteries are firmly in support of Archbishop NATHANIEL’S decision.
At the conclusion of his report, Archbishop NATHANIEL reaffirmed the historic commitment of the Romanian Episcopate to The Orthodox in America, and its mission.
But in recent weeks Nathaniel and those with him in the OCA Romanian Episcopate (diocese) said in their joint statement (PDF) with the Patriarchate in Bucharest after those meetings:
Having recognized the errors of the past, and having asked each other for mutual
forgiveness, the representatives of the Patriarchate of Romania and those of the ROEA
express their sincere desire for the realization of the unity of all Romanian Orthodox on
the American continent, in a canonical relationship with the Church of Romania [emphasis mine].
In a letter to OCA Romanians (PDF), Nathaniel and his dialogue commission reported that they and those of the Patriarchate's Archdiocese
agreed to study further a possible course of action, since any potential union is a matter that can only be decided by our people locally, in congress [of the Episcopate].... We consider the result of the meetings ... in Bucharest as positive and encouraging for ... the movement toward unity of all Orthodox in North America - which the Church of Romania agrees is needed and inevitable.
Furthermore, right after that, the Bucharest Synod authorized Abp Nicolae of their Archdiocese here (5MB PDF! - it's just a two-page scan) to - if my Romance language knowledge and an online Romanian-English dictionary (I couldn't find a free online R-E machine translator!) are worth anything -
I've heard that the two sides were talking about an autonomous Metro. of some kind in previous years, so I don't know if there's really anything new here, but ROEA saying they're pursuing Romanian unity "in a canonical relationship with the Church of Romania," and the Patriarchate looking ahead to unity "in direct canonical relationship with the Romanian Orthodox Church" - it sounds like identical language to me.
Fascinating developments.
--Leo
Responses:
