Posted by Leo
on 10/16/2008, 10:31 am
Dear Sisters and Brothers,
I was interested in taking another look at it as presented at that Serbian site, presuming they've represented it accurately (plus their comments!):
In recent times, the Constantinople patriarchate is striving to put the entire diaspora under its jurisdiction. In this way the Third Inter-Orthodox working committee in Chambezi - Geneva from November 7-13th, 1993, clearly put the world on notice that the Constantinople patriarchate considers that the entire diaspora belongs only to it. The text about the orthodox diaspora adoped in Chambezi states:
1. The regions in which in the first phase Bishops sabors {ie, sobors or assemblies} will be organized are announced as follows:
I North and Central America {NB: SCOBA}
II South America
III Australia {NB: SCOCCA}
IV Great Britain
V France {NB: l'AEOF}
VI Belgium and Holland
VII Austria and Italy
VIII Germany {NB: KOKID}
The Bishops of the diaspora who reside in the diaspora and have parishes in more than one region will be members of the Bishops' sabor of those territories and will continue to effect their jurisdiction over their already exiting parishes which are not part of the above mentioned regions.
2. Draft regulations, which will be prepared by the Secretariat for the organization of the Holy and Great {Council} according to their approved (by their own members) competency, will be compiled on the basis of that approved by the III Inter-Orthodox working commitee text (paragraph 2g) with reference to already existing examples of Bishops" sabors in the framework of orthodox canonical tradition, and a decision will be made with respect to that by the IV prosynodal pan orthodox conference which is scheduled to meet.
3. These sabors, which will be formed following the decision of the IV prosynodal pan orthodox conference will be given the responsibility to draw up detailed draft regulations governing their work and to adapt it before the calling of the Holy and Great Sabor. In that forum of adaptation, motions at the Bishops" sabor ought to express, if possible, unanimity of their members, and where unanimity is not possible, will be carried by a majority vote.
4. The presidents of the Bishops" sabors will call and preside over all sabors of bishops of their region (liturgical, missionary, administrative etc.). On matters of general interest, which by decision of the Bishops" sabors require pan orthodox face to face resolution, will be refered to the patriarch of Constantinople by the sabor president for further action with respect to the pan orthodox aspect.
5. The Orthodox churches obligate themselves not to take any steps which might harm the above noted path to a canonical resolution of the question of the diaspora, including the formation of new diocese in the diaspora. On the contrary, the churches in question, in their capacity as mother churches, will do everything possible towards easing the work of the Bishops" sabors and the establishment of normal canonical relations in the diaspora.
If that Serbian essay is any indication, their objection to this plan was submission of their diaspora to Constantinople, as they believe only their Mother Church, ie, Serbia, can maintain the faith and culture / ethnic identity of diaspora Serbs. Maybe others also objected to "autonomy under C'ople." But I wonder, since what this text actually says doesn't sound to me like 'straight autonomy under C.,' but some circumlocution:
On matters of general interest, which by decision of the Bishops' sabors require pan orthodox face to face resolution, will be refered to the patriarch of Constantinople by the sabor president for further action with respect to the pan orthodox aspect.
"General" interest seems to mean "universal," ie, matters beyond the local Diaspora land impacting it, whatever that may mean. If the local Assembly of Bishops decides some matter needs to be taken up internationally, the chairman of the Assembly will communicate it to the rest of World Orthodoxy via C'ople, rather than directly as he would if he were autocephalous, perhaps envisioning Primates' Synaxes or even an Orthodox Ecumenical Synod (Council). That sounds pretty non-intrusive to me, even if C'ople imagines the chairmen will all be Greeks: remember that that seems to be OK with SCOBA, and the French l'AEOF is also chaired by the Greek metropolitan. (I'm not sure about KOKID in Germany, and SCOCCA in Australia, they say, is comatose.) Then again, if this is just some form of words, and true "autonomy 'under' C'ople" is intended, well, that can be fixed by a few more words to make it acceptable to non-Constantinopolitans, if C'ople can accept that, that is! I also recall hearing that this proposal envisioned this as a transitional arrangement to full Diaspora (united) autocephaly, ie, not a lasting empire for C'ople.
(cont’d.)
Responses:
