Romanian Orthodox for Enquiry in America

Guardians of the Vatra

Orthodox Brotherhood Documents

ROAA/BOR Documents

NY Episcopal Assembly & ROEA

Author: Administrator
September 20, 2010
It has been three months since the Episcopal Assembly of all Canonical Orthodox Hierarchs of North and Central America took place in New York. It is important to review what actually happened so as to examine the implications for our Vatra Episcopate -ROEA (Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America), a Diocese of the OCA (Orthodox Church of America), before our Cleveland 2010 Episcopate Congress.

The long-awaited 2010 New York Episcopal Assembly has come and gone and nothing much has changed - or has it?  Old-world Patriarchates and their foreign Bishops continue claiming that they want to “organise” (colonial regimentation?) and “take care of” (control?) their so-called “Diasporas” (us?).  We Orthodox faithful in North America who are promoting a local and independent Church reply: “If you really want to help, why not stop your foreign interference and let us organize ourselves into a local and Autocephalous Orthodox Church here, in the United States and Canada, and then officially recognize us as such?”

Pre- Episcopal Assembly attempts to minimize OCA (Orthodox Church of America) importance and even have it excluded from the 2010 New York meetings by some Old-world Patriarchates, were thwarted by more realistic North-American senior Prelates who knew that this would be counter-productive.  It should be noted that only some Orthodox Churches accept OCA claims of being the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in North America; albeit these Churches represent the majority of Orthodox faithful worldwide.  Clearly, those Old-world Patriarchates who want to continue overlording the North American Orthodox Churches cannot accept OCA Autocephaly since this would mean relinquishing their claims over their underling Eparchies, Archdioceses and Metropolitanates here.  At the same time, all Old- world Patriarchates claim that they want to help in the creation of a unified and local Orthodox Church here.  In order to help the process along, the OCA’s Metropolitan Jonah has publicly stated that he would gladly submerge the OCA into a broader-based Autocephalous, Orthodox Church here, in which all major jurisdictions would be unified, and that he would even give up his leadership role in that Church if it was so required.  This sign of Christian humility has taken the Orthodox world by surprise and now all must deal with this new reality.

Other issues also had to be considered by the senior Prelates organising the New York Assembly.  For example, there are close to sixty Orthodox Hierarchs having parishes/ missions in North America, representing the third largest Episcopal College in worldwide Orthodoxy.  No one can pretend that the second largest Orthodox Church in North America (after GOAA- Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America), does not exist and consequently OCA Hierarchs had to be included at the 2010 Episcopal Assembly called in New York.  The OCA truly was the elephant in the room.  All of its Hierarchs were seated together, just like the other Churches invited.  As they walked into the Assembly room it became obvious that the OCA contingent was very large and they then heard Metropolitan Saliba point out in his supportive address to the Assembly that: “no canonical bishop should be excluded from the Assembly.  If we share the same Eucharistic table, which is the highest expression of Orthodox unity, can’t we work together on the Executive Committee?” asked the Metropolitan, referring to the absence of OCA’s Metropolitan Jonah on that Committee.  The final message emanating from the Episcopal Assembly coordinated by the Chairman, Archbishop Demetrios, was signed by all 55 Hierarchs present and entitled: “Message of the Episcopal Assembly of the Canonical Orthodox Hierarchs of North and Central America, May 26-28, 2010, New York” a clear acceptance by all signatory Hierarchs that the OCA Hierarchs are also “Canonical”.  This was then confirmed by OCA presence at the closing Holy Liturgy where the Hierarchs partook of the same chalice.  Thus, instead of challenging the OCA Hierarchs’ canonicity as some were expecting, the Episcopal Assembly instead confirmed it by their actions. If it proved to be too difficult to avoid even inviting the OCA to the Episcopal Assembly, their presence at the 2010 New York Assembly was eloquence incarnate.  The OCA is a major force to be reckoned with and can no longer be avoided.  Going forward, much will depend upon the determination and resolve of the OCA leadership…

Another important aspect to consider regarding the Episcopal Assembly is that no one spoke of phyletism at this Assembly.  Some early pan-Orthodox meetings held at Chambesy among Old-World Patriarchates, and where North American prelates were not even invited, concluded that churches in the so-called “Diaspora” should return to their Mother Churches.  Some did and the results are far from positive.  The first example is ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) submitting to the Moscow Patriarchate, which was a very divisive move when it happened, and which continues to be an even more divisive one as time moves on.  Today, there are a growing number of concerned ROCOR Hierarchs who must also deal with a growing number of disgruntled parishes, unhappy with the turn of events, to the point that open rebellion is again a real possibility.  The latest sign of the distrust between the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR is evidenced in the naming of the Russian Orthodox senior Hierarch at the Episcopal Assembly.  Given that the Moscow Patriarchate had no Bishop in North America and that ROCOR had 9, it would have been “normal” for ROCOR’s senior Hierarch, Canadian born Metropolitan Hilarion, to represent the Russian Church at the New York Episcopal Assembly and thereafter in North America.  But no; Moscow instead named the unknown Archbishop Justinian from the Old Country, a Hierarch who doesn’t even speak English, to represent the Russian Church at the New York Assembly.  What an insult to ROCOR and Metropolitan Hilarion, not to mention a snubbing of all present at the Episcopal Assembly.  This example only highlights how badly things are going between ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate.  Open dissatisfaction and further divisions have already begun.  The second example is the so-called unity forged between the Belgrade Serbs and the “Free” Serbs here.  After years of fruitless negotiation, Belgrade declared “unity” between the two groups, and without explanation the hierarchy of the “Free” Serbs submitted to Belgrade rule, and this without the accord of the “Free” Serb parishes and their representatives here.  In practice, this “Unity” does not exist; and the grumblings are getting louder here, as Belgrade is getting more frustrated there. Thus, there was no mention of rejoining Mother Churches at the 2010 Episcopal Assembly in New York.  The notion of foreign protectorships or autonomous structures under Old World Patriarchates was not even given serious consideration by many of the participants.  It seems that the foreign overtures for overlording our Church here have fallen on deaf ears, and that the phyletistic bubble has burst and is seen by all for what it is; an attempted power grab by Old World Patriarchates, something not acceptable to a North American Church which wants to create its own unified Autocephalous future based on its own 200 year old history on this continent.  However, rest assured that most Old-world Patriarchates much prefer having us as separate underlings rather than as a unified Autocephalous church over which they would have no control.  So, we probably have not seen the end of byzantine strategic moves to this end and, in this regard at least, we must remain positive regarding the possible favourable outcome of these Assemblies, but we must also heighten our vigilance.

Reviewing the list of Hierarchal participation at the 2010 New York Episcopal Assembly, it is worthwhile to note that many of these Hierarchs are foreign nationals and some probably even hold foreign diplomatic passports.  Clearly, if push would come to shove, their allegiance would likely be to their home nation and church there, rather than to the United States/ Canada and the local Church here.  We must also remember that in many cases the Old- world Churches are closely intertwined with their Old-world Governments, many of which pay clergy salaries, thereby possibly directing their activities.  In some cases, these clergy probably continue to act as an extension of their government diplomatic/ foreign/ external affairs contingents/ espoionage/ secret police/ etc., in the so-called “Diaspora”, i.e. United States/ Canada.  All this foreign intervention under the guise of religious hierarchal paternity is too much for many of us here to swallow.  We must underline that history has proven that some of these foreign churches have, in the past, sided with their home nations, to the detriment of our own political well-being here, and this could happen in the future.  Some in our families left the Church because of it and this should not be repeated.  This type of behaviour belongs to a colonialism we have long outgrown and want to relegate to the past.  We need a Church from here, run by people from here, for people here. In short, we want a local church, something even Orthodox Canons require. How, in all fairness can we ask a foreign national, paid from a foreign country, traveling on a foreign diplomatic passport, to decide what is best for us here, in North America?  Clearly, only North American clergy and laity should participate in determining our North American Orthodox future.  Why risk anything else with something so precious?  Aren’t there enough American/Canadian Orthodox Bishops to move things along in the creation of our unified local Orthodox Church here?  Shouldn’t this be discussed at the next Episcopal Assemblies in the United States and Canada?

The Orthodox Church does exist here and we have our own local cultures, languages and traditions which help shape our own brand of Orthodoxy, much as Greek society marks Greek Orthodoxy, Russian society marks Russian Orthodoxy, and Romanian society marks Romanian Orthodoxy, etc.  This gives Eastern Orthodoxy a richness in diversity that is not as prevalent in other churches and religions.  For example, even though Orthodoxy teaches that clergy and laity together form Christ’s Church, our North American political systems, cultures and societal contexts are predisposed to a more active lay participation in Church governance and administration than exists in the Greek or Russian Orthodox Churches, for example.  As well, organizations such as the Orthodox Christian Laity (OCL) are important arms of Orthodoxy here.  For example the OCL was instrumental in helping organize the 2010 New York Episcopal Assembly, and is forging a strategy so that it can best help clergy-laity cooperation in the creation of the all inclusive Autocephalous Orthodox Church many of us here yearn for.  Remember, the highest form of unity in Christ already exists in the Orthodox Church in North America, as witnessed by the Episcopal Assembly Hierarchs partaking of the Eucharist at the Holy Liturgy.  The administrative unity in the form of an autocephalous Orthodox Church containing all jurisdictions here has not yet arrived, but it is the goal of many North American Orthodox clergy and laity, and since this is a good thing, it will happen in due time, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  In the meantime, we can be thankful that the 2010 New York Episcopal Assembly, in spite of attempts to exclude the OCA, realized the importance of accepting the canonicity of OCA Hierarchs and the reality of OCA existence in North America, as well as generating a workable framework for moving ahead.  We must now be vigilant that the Episcopal Assembly Committees yet to be named are representative of American and Canadian views and not foreign desires.  Only in this way will a true Autocephalous Orthodox Church emerge here.

What does all this mean for the renewed and now perennial post 1990 debate regarding our ROEA (Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America) abandonment of the OCA only to accept subjugation under the Romanian Patriarchate, joining with their underling post-WWII fabrication, the subservient but so-called, by themselves, “autonomous” Church, even though it is really the Bucharest-run ROAA (Romanian Orthodox Archdiocese of the Americas)?  The May 2010 New York Episcopal Assembly of almost all Bishops having parishes/ missions in North America did not refer to phyletism as a possible option, even though earlier pronouncements from Chambesy did refer to churches here, in the New World, returning under “Mother Churches” there, in the Old World.  Following the New York Assembly, it seems clear that the only way forward is to focus on creating a multi- jurisdictional local Orthodox church here, as prescribed by the Canons.  In this context, any talk of creating a new Romanian North American Orthodox Metropolitanate, combining our Vatra ROEA with the ROAA under BOR, is out of rhythm with the latest Orthodox developments here.  This debate should now be over.  It should have been over before it even started, since abandoning the OCA to join the Romanian Patriarchate is like leaving the present and future behind so that we may live in the past.

Negotiations over the past few years have also shown that the ROAA and the Romanian Patriarchate are not willing to properly respond to our required “Due Diligence” process and questions (of which only a part have been sent and not properly answered even for these easy questions).  It is in this process that legal, contractual and financial issues are detailed and fully explained.  This is also a prerequisite to any further discussion on organisational structure and workable control mechanisms that would be needed to keep the Romanian Patriarchate away from interference in the Church here, something that apparently will not be guaranteed by them. In fact, it seems that the latest proposals regarding the new Metropolitanate no longer highlight a “maximal autonomy” based on a canonical relationship “with” BOR, but instead imply a subservience “under” BOR.

Years of talking and no correcting of the false historical record that the Romanian Patriarchate and its underling ROAA continue to spread, proves their bad intentions.  The fact that they will not release the remains, that are still in Romania, of our first Hierarch here, Bishop Morusca, who was detained in Communist Romania against his will, shows that they do not choose to correct the historic record.  As well, they refuse to admit their active collaboration with the Romanian Communist Government, their role in undermining our Vatra Episcopate and their direct involvement in bringing Archbishop Valerian down.  Also, they continue to present themselves as the heirs to the Episcopate headed by Bishop Morusca (this year being their 77th  Congress), even though the 1950’s court cases proved that our Episcopate was the rightful heir of that legacy, and that their eparchy was founded in the 1950’s for those very court cases they lost.  How dare they claim something that has been proven false?  All this and more to say that 1990 has become 2010 and, in the meantime, most of North American Orthodoxy has relegated phyletistic organisational models, as originally proposed by Old- world Patriarchs (including BOR), to the back- burner, in favour of forging an Autocephalous Orthodox Church here. In any event, the 2010 New York Episcopal Assembly clearly shows that many Hierarchs are well beyond falling for Old-world Patriarchates’ past strategies of attempting to force us to be subservient to them.  The fact that this was not even mentioned at the 2010 New York Assembly is proof that this line of reasoning is no longer acceptable here and that the formation of that elusive Autocephalous Orthodox Church here, comprising all foreign jurisdictions, is the goal; nothing less.

Contrary to whispered claims, the Episcopal Assembly showed that our OCA Hierarchs are canonical and, as the second largest Orthodox regrouping in North America, and with a large number of Hierarchs spread across this continent, a major force to be reckoned with; one that cannot be ignored.  Of course, the Romanian Patriarchate, along with other Old-world Patriarchates, would prefer if this were not case, however, this is today’s North American Orthodox reality.  They must now deal with it.

In this context, the Old-world Patriarchates must learn what acceptable behaviour is, and what is not.  For example, it was normal and necessary that the history of Orthodoxy in North America be reviewed by a Hierarch at the 2010 Episcopal Assembly.  Would it not have been better for a more appropriate Prelate to speak of this, possibly an American-born Hierarch?  That Archbishop Nicolae, who represents a minority of Romanian North-American Orthodox did so, was brazen and ironic, particularly since he represents the Romanian Patriarchate here, the Church that acted as a tool of the Communist Romanian government during the time from 1948 to at least 1990.  Everything Bucharest did was done to discredit our Episcopate here, in an attempt to take it over and transform our parishes into political platforms for our cold war Communist enemies. Our Vatra Episcopate, the ROEA, is a founding Diocese of the OCA and represents 75% of all Romanian North American Orthodox faithful, yet Bucharest’s underling Archbishop Nicolae speaks at the Episcopal Assembly in New York and not the ROEA’s Archbishop Nathaniel?  Many of us find this insulting and unacceptable.

Again, even after 1990, the false Communist interpretation of our Romanian history here has never been corrected by the present day Romanian Patriarchate or its North American creation here (ROAA) headed by Archbishop Nicolae.  How dare these foreigners and representatives of some who were enemies of the USA and Canada, stand up today in a public place, as was the 2010 Episcopal Assembly in New York, and tell us about our history, interpreting their role in a completely false way.  They never worked towards creating an Autocephalous Orthodox Church here, only attempting to bring us under their foreign control. And our North American clergy listened politely …

Having the Vatra Episcopate abandon the OCA to join him under the Romanian Patriarchate was and is Archbishop Nicolae’s mandate, and continues to be an objective of the Romanian Patriarchate, albeit for additional reasons today.  All you have to do is read the Romanian Patriarch’s Unity Appeal posted on this website February 13, 2010, to understand that his representative here, Archbishop Nicolae had no moral right to speak at the Episcopal Assembly.  Unhappily, Bucharest is continuing to play with us. Let’s pray that the North American Bishops gathered in New York understand this game for what it is, which is for foreign churches to maintain their political and economic power over us here in North America.  We in the ROEA/OCA must continue to be prudent with them, and remain faithful to an independent OCA whose senior Hierarch is from here and not from a foreign country.

It is obvious that OCA autocephaly is a major problem for Old World Churches intent on still ruling us here, in the New World.  It is also evident that the OCA Metropolitan Jonah is under concentrated pressure to renounce the OCA Autocephaly.  Think what would happen if the Old World Patriarchs, starting with the Patriarch of Moscow, would attempt to withdraw the autocephaly it granted in 1970.  With what right?  What would the OCA have to have done in order to merit such offensive treatment, unique in Orthodox history?  No, this would indeed be very difficult, too difficult to sell to the Orthodox laity here.  A churches autocephaly (a church word meaning independence) cannot be rescinded in that the church in question would not be “independent” but forever “dependent” on the church having granting that autocephaly.  This would be nonsense.  Only in the case of heresy could this even be envisaged and then all Orthodox Churches would be called to agree. So, it would be much simpler if Metropolitan Jonah would himself give up the autocephaly granted the OCA in 1970. Many Churches do not recognize OCA autocephaly and they threaten it by saying: “what Moscow has granted (OCA autocephaly in 1970), Moscow may rescind” - which, according to some, is false.  Others say that: “only Constantinople can grant autocephaly and so the OCA autocephaly is invalid”, but history shows that other churches have granted it in the past and it remains valid.  It seems that in the past, autocephaly has usually been declared and then ratified by the other Orthodox Churches; not a very elegant procedure, in some cases taking very many years to complete. Thus, it seems that autocephaly can only be lost if the autocephalous Church in question requests it being withdrawn, or if it does/ supports non-canonical and non-Orthodox deeds, which is not the case with the OCA.  In this case political and economic interests drive Constantinople and many Old World Patriarchates to want an Autocephalous OCA to disappear.

Metropolitan Jonah has, in the past, offered to have OCA autocephaly submerged into a more complete, autocephalous North American Church where all present jurisdictions here would come together under one, single, all-inclusive North American Orthodox Patriarchate.  Even this gesture is being questioned by some in the OCA who say that our Autocephaly should not be up for negotiation and that other Churches here, including the Serbs, Antiochians, Greeks, etc., should join under the OCA in forming a more inclusive Orthodox presence in North America, in our existing autocephalous church.  Also, there seems to be limited OCA support for unilaterally giving up OCA autocephaly and having the church go under either the Russians or the Greeks in that there is no upside in so doing.  Certainly, by renouncing it, this would mean losing our existing autocephaly in exchange for a hope, as told us by Old World Patriarchates, that a more inclusive autocephalous church might be made here in the future, when (they say) we are ready for such a thing.  Are they serious?  These Old World churches have betrayed us in the past, because their goal is to control us here in the future, in the same way they controlled us from there in the past, for their own and their respective governments’ benefits.  If our past history with these Old World churches is a barometer, our chances of obtaining such an all-inclusive church would be dashed forever if Old World Patriarchates managed to relieve us of our OCA autocephaly today.  Our Metropolitan Jonah, the OCA Synod, Metropolitan Council and the OCA All-American Council should know that even if other churches do not recognize our autocephaly, our maintaining the status quo is the only guarantee for a more inclusive North American church in the future, not only for OCA members, but for all present and future Orthodox faithful in North America.

Let’s pray that our leadership will not cede to old world pressures and continue to preserve our OCA autocephaly, fighting for a more inclusive church in the future. In short, maintaining OCA autocephaly is the only guarantor of developing that all-inclusive North American Orthodox Patriarchate, many of us yearn for.  Giving up our OCA autocephaly would mean giving up on the idea of such a Patriarchate in the New World.  Sadly, history has proven that Old World Patriarchates have always done what is best for themselves and their foreign governments, and not what was best for us here in the New World.  Nothing has changed to make us believe that this is no longer the case.  If anything, latest developments in Antioch, Constantinople, Moscow and Bucharest prove that nothing has changed; they want us under their control…  Period.  And if this were to happen, we would have a situation dominated either by phyletism or have a church which is not local, ruled by a Prelate without a local Synod.  In both cases, this would mean a non-canonical situation and, in the long run, the end of North American Orthodoxy.  We cannot let corruption, interests, and thirst for power, destroy the future of our Orthodox and Autocephalous church here, in the New World. What happened in New York at the Episcopal Assembly, where the canonicity of our OCA Bishops was declared de facto, in spite of the wishes of Old World Patriarchates, leaves us with the hope that local Bishops from here will lead the local church in future, and not those from foreign lands.  Let it be so.

In this new context, the debate over the merits of the Vatra ROEA leaving the OCA in order to join the ROAA under the Romanian Patriarchate has been superseded by the general desire of many North American Orthodox from all ethnic groups including converts, to establish an all-inclusive North American Patriarchate.  The autocephalous OCA, being the only multi ethnic church with ethnic dioceses overlapping regional dioceses has a unique experience, essential in building the all inclusive church of tomorrow.  Our role, as the second largest ethnic regrouping in the OCA (after the Russians and before the Bulgarians and Albanians) is to remain faithful to the OCA in order to best contribute to our common church future in North America.  The New York Episcopal Assembly was an important step in that direction and we should now focus on the future of our church in North America and leave the past, including the Romanian Patriarchate, in the past. This, for the Orthodox future of our North American children.

12 Comments to “NY Episcopal Assembly & ROEA”

  1. Peter Says:

    Judging from your report on the Episcopal Assembly, it certainly seems that the Old World Patriarchs have lost some ground recently; no longer openly contesting the canonicity of OCA Hierarchs or resorting to clichéd arguments about having to shepherd their so-called “Diasporas” here in the New World.

    This is encouraging news in that the false, ethnic, interpretations of Orthodox Canons promulgated by the Old World Patriarchs seem to be getting taken less and less seriously in the Orthodox World as time goes by, particularly in the US and Canada.

    It was also nice to read in the report about Jonah’s willingness to relinquish his authority in the interests of creating a larger unified North American solution. This is indeed humility, which we could all learn from. This, in contrast to too many other comments from Hierarchs that seem political and self-promoting. Metropolitan Jonah’s noble thoughts really help to expose politicians as politicians and it also helps to remind us what a Hierarch, intent on the good of the Church, would do, if needed. May he also have the strength to do battle when the time comes, and unhappily, it just might… This will be another test of his mettle.

    Let’s hope that the spirit of finding solutions instead of focusing only on problems prevails and that the OCA can be a central part of a workable action plan for the good of the North American Church and hopefully for the good of all Orthodoxy in the long run.

  2. Viorel Says:

    Multumesc pentru aceste cuvinte care pun totul in contextul de astazi. Sa speram ca OCA-ul si ROEA nu se vor clatina. Sa ne rugam pentru Mitropolitul Jonah si pentru Arhiepiscopul nostru Nathaniel ca sa nu cedeze in fata bisericilor din lumea veche. Sa ne rugam si pentru cei din Consiliu Mitropolitan OCA si Consiliu Episcopesc ROEA ca sa arate taria laicizmului orthodox in continuare.

  3. Anonymous Says:

    [You say:] “Also, there seems to be limited OCA support for unilaterally giving up OCA autocephaly and having the church go under either the Russians or the Greeks…”

    This is the first time I have ever heard of this? Is this serious? Who is supporting this? Bishops? Priests? Laypeople? Who is the “limited OCA support”?

  4. Administrator Says:

    The OCA’s Autocephaly has been questioned by some since it was first granted by Moscow in 1970. A renewed attack came in preparation of the May 2010 NY Bishops Assembly, where some Old World Patriarchates did not even want the OCA to be invited, since they do not accept OCA autocephaly. Some of these Churches view the OCA as an Autonomous Church of the Russian Patriarchate, in spite of the fact that Moscow has recently reaffirmed the OCA autocephaly (see Sep.1, 2010 article on this website by Fr. Alexander Garklavs). Some other Churches claim that since America is in “barbaric territory” only the Ecumenical Patriarch can oversee it or grant autocephaly there. Hence, the pressure to give up our OCA Autocephaly and go “under” the Russians or the Greeks.

    Of course, this is being discussed at the senior levels of the OCA. The internet websites which discuss OCA matters do refer to this issue. As an example look at the article by Fr. Ted Bobosh at:
    Another example are the comments made on Mark Stokoe’s site at:
    Finally, reports on these topics by the OCA itself and a comprehensive Questions and Answers section highlight the preoccupation with the legitimacy of the OCA autocephaly:
    I hope this helps.

  5. Priest Anthony (Spencer) Estabrooks Says:

    Thank you especially for your most recent article in preparation for the upcomiing ROEA Congress. I found it very thorough, with much important information and insight…

    … With my prayers in Christ as the Congress approaches,

  6. Preot in Misiune Says:

    Ca de obicei,romanul inca discuta despre costul biletului in timp ce trenul a plecat din gara. Trenul cu Biserica Mama a plecat din gara si nu mai vine inapoi fiindca lumea ortodoxa de aici are nevoie de o biserica ortodoxa de aici. Urmatorul tren este despre Patriarhia Americana unde toate etniile ortodoxe sunt la un loc. Este nevoie de astfel de tren…

    Intr-un sector american unde populatia diminueaza, O veche parohie rusa care nu poate sa se intretina, astazi primeste bani si de la o misiune romaneasca si de la o fosta parohia albaneza care a vandut biserica proprie neavand destui membrii. Seviciile mai mult separate, dar Pastele impreuna, la 12 noaptea, in 4 limbi dar unde engleza domina 80%! Trei grupuri etnice si convertitii care se inteleg – intr-o biserica! Se discuta ca proprietarii sa fie toate trei grupuri. Iata prezentul unora si viitorul altora.

    Intr-un sector unde populatia creste, nu sunt destule biserici ortodoxe. Fiecare etnie incearca sa capete un loc duminica dimineata dar nu sunt destule biserici nici protestante, si serviciile se fac in afara de oras, sau in locuri mai putin potrivite ca sali de scoala. Noii veniti in sector nu sunt destui de numerosi sa se faca o biserica ortodoxa pentru fiecare etnie, dar local s-ar putea pune aceste grupuri impreuna pentru a cladi o biserica ortodoxa. Iata ca episcopul roman sub Bucuresti o vrea sub el, si cel din OCA sub el, episcopul grec sub el, s.a.m.d. Avand o Patriarhie Americana ar rezolva aceasta problema si acel oras ar avea o biserica noua, multi-etnica, si cu convertiti, unde predomina limba engleza, intr-o Biserica americana unde conduce un episcop american. Desigur, ar fi preoti corespunzatori pentru fiecare etnie numeroasa in aceasta biserica, si asa pana cand nu ar mai fi de folos servicii in alte limbi decat engleza. Asa se cade unei biserici locale. Cooperare si nu confruntare… E numai un vis? SI NOI INCA VORBIM DE UNIRE SUB BOR? CHIAR CA SUNTEM DEPASITI DE EVENIMENTE!

  7. Administrator Says:

    Draga Preot in Misiune, sunt fericit ca ai scris un comentariu si ca ne-ai impartasit realitatea de pe teren.

    Intr-adevar, vazand asa lucrurile, o cooperare mult mai stransa intre ortodocsi de toate grupurile etnice in America este de mare folos. Si asta se poate face numai avand o biserica ortodoxa unde toti ortodocsii de aici fac parte din ea, si unde ierarhii sunt, la randul lor, americani, intr-un Sinod ortodox American, cu un intai-statator AICI.

  8. Preot in Parohie Stabilita Says:

    Parinte in Misiune, pot sa spun ca am constatat si eu ca misiunile in orase unde nu a fost parohie ortodoxa romana sunt in crestere fiindca asa vrea cresterea demografica.

    De asemenea, unde a fost parohie si din cauza schimbarilor demografice este mai putina lume in localitatea respectiva, acolo e nevoie de a concentra eforturile tuturor ortodocsiilor din zona pentru a pastra ortodoxia locala.

    In plus, avem vechea concurenta de la grupul minoritar BOR (Arhiepiscopia sub IPS Nicolae)care a incercat sa deschida chiar unde Vatra avea deja prezenta stabilita.

    Exista si un nou fenomen, adica unde se deschid noi misiuni in orase unde avem déjà parohii, chiar din ambele episcopii romanesti. Acolo este concurenta intre grupuri din aceias episcopie in loc de efort comun. De ce nu se face ca in alte locuri, adica protopopul orasului (cel cu o parohie adevarata si de lunga durata, cu cladire si situatie financiara aceptabila din aceias episcopie)este responsabil pentru misiunile din suburbiile si orasele apropriate,si acei preoti din aceias episcopie depind de el. Acum e

  9. Nikanor Starotserkovskiy Says:

    I imagine the ROCOR would prefer not to be represented in the leadership of the North American Episcopal Assembly. It has remained committed to traditional Orthodoxy through the decades and most within the ROCOR do not consider the jurisdictions of the Episcopal Assembly (with the exception of the Serbs and possibly parts of the OCA) to be completely faithful to the Orthodox Faith despite the recent reunion with Moscow. I think that, for the time being, the Synod Abroad is taking a “wait and see” attitude towards the Episcopal Assembly.

  10. Optimist Says:

    Surely the Episcopal Assembly will have to come to grips with the reality of North American Orthodoxy and any future structures/proposals will have to do likewise.

  11. Thomas Says:

    Voia lui Dumnezeu nu o schimbati. Si daca e voia lui Dumnezeu ca toti romanii sa se uneasca intr-o singura mitropolie, pute-ti sta si in cap, si in maine si cum vreti voi, ca in zadar faceti si ziceti totul.

    Asta suna si pentru “preotul in misiune” si pentru Nemoianu, si pentru Administratorul; si pentru toti care scriu impotriva unirii.

  12. Administrator Says:

    Thomas, tu stii voia lui Dumnezeu in contextual subjugarii sub Bucuresti? Pa-i daca ai sti-o, atunci te-ai fi oprit de mult cu aceste ideii lipsite de logica!

Leave a Comment;

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for e-mail notifications.
Not all of your comments are necessarily displayed on this website.
Comments are not necessarily those of