Post Reply
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Jurisdiction Problems in Many Nations?
6 years ago  ::  Jan 16, 2009 - 9:35PM #1
Huson
Posts: 44
It is well known that there are multiple Orthodox jurisdictions in the Americas (the United States, Canada, and Mexico).

A recent google search for the Orthodox Church in Australia, New Zeland, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Korea and Argentina* indicates that there are multiple jurisdictions in all these countries. 

Does this sound right? 

If yes, what does this say about the ability of the Orthodox Church to establish itself according to biblical norms in South America, other parts of Europe, and othere parts of Asia?

Huson

*These are the countries listed as Holy Archdiocese's or Holy Metropolis' of the Throne on the Ecumenical Patriarch's web site.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Jan 17, 2009 - 8:35PM #2
anyuta64
Posts: 1,536
[QUOTE=Huson;1024272]It is well known that there are multiple Orthodox jurisdictions in the Americas (the United States, Canada, and Mexico).

A recent google search for the Orthodox Church in Australia, New Zeland, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Korea and Argentina* indicates that there are multiple jurisdictions in all these countries. 

Does this sound right? 

If yes, what does this say about the ability of the Orthodox Church to establish itself according to biblical norms in South America, other parts of Europe, and othere parts of Asia?

Huson

*These are the countries listed as Holy Archdiocese's or Holy Metropolis' of the Throne on the Ecumenical Patriarch's web site.[/QUOTE]


I think the issue is that in all these places, Orthodoxy is a small minority, primarily of immigrants from somewhere else.  I think that untill Orthodoxy become a "native" chruch wiht a significant number (if not a majority, then at least a sizeable minority), there can't realistically be a single jurisdiction, as would be the canonical norm.

the original spread of orthdooxy was into places where christianity was new, and furthermore, it wasn't immigrants, but missionaries who brought it.  the conversion process was therefore fairly straightforward.. people converted to Christianity (Orthodox), falling under the jurisdiction of the home country of the missionaries. the new faithfull were natives, and the chruch eventually grew as an outgrowth of that original jurisdiction untill it became big enough to be granted autonomy.

It sztarted that way in America, too (in Alaska), untill the situation changed significantly.

but in all the other countries you listed, Orthodoxy was brought not by missionaries, but by immigrants, who (reasonably) still had ties with their home jurisdiction.   I think that in the end, the result will be the same, but the process for getting there will just be less tidy.  Remember, we're only talking, really about a century of so of Orthodoxy in most of these countries.  That's a blip in Orthodox terms.  Keep in mind taht all issues of jurisdicion related to Church administration, not belief at all. 

It's not ideal, but I don't think it's such an unexpected thing. I think that waht seems oh so significant now, when we look back at it from the distance of a few centuries will be barely noticible. 

with the exception of the US and Canada, and perahps a few countries in Western Europe, you are really talkikng not about whole jurisdictions in situ, but rather a few individual parishes under one or another jurisdiction.  of all these countries, I htink the US is the only one with a ture "native" jurisdiction among them, and the numbers to justify it.
Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available.

NOTE: This post is a natural product. The sleight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual charicter and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 24, 2009 - 12:15PM #3
Huson
Posts: 44
RE Orthodoxy is a small minority, primarily of immigrants from somewhere else. I think that untill Orthodoxy become a "native" chruch wiht a significant number (if not a majority, then at least a sizeable minority), there can't realistically be a single jurisdiction, as would be the canonical norm.

Why couldn't  the opposite have happened?  Let's say that over a 50 year period a few dozen/hundered/thousand Orthodox believers each from various "jurisdictions" find themselves in a new country.  Over time, as they get established, they realize that they actually live close enough to each other to communicate regularly and, if they wanted to, develop friendships.  What would keep them from saying, "Hey, we are in a strange land, and we need the support of each other, and there is safety in numbers, and we all believe the same thing; we should get together and be THE Orthodox Church in this country."

The reason the opposite could not have happened is because the Orthodox Church is more ethnic than "One."  Hence the constant need to state the canard:  "Keep in mind that all issues of jurisdicion related to Church administration, not belief at all."  I think it is wrong to draw this distinction because the nature of the church is, or should be, part of the belief system. 

Huson
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 24, 2009 - 7:26PM #4
anyuta64
Posts: 1,536
[QUOTE=Huson;1040823]RE Orthodoxy is a small minority, primarily of immigrants from somewhere else. I think that untill Orthodoxy become a "native" chruch wiht a significant number (if not a majority, then at least a sizeable minority), there can't realistically be a single jurisdiction, as would be the canonical norm.

Why couldn't  the opposite have happened?  Let's say that over a 50 year period a few dozen/hundered/thousand Orthodox believers each from various "jurisdictions" find themselves in a new country.  Over time, as they get established, they realize that they actually live close enough to each other to communicate regularly and, if they wanted to, develop friendships.  What would keep them from saying, "Hey, we are in a strange land, and we need the support of each other, and there is safety in numbers, and we all believe the same thing; we should get together and be THE Orthodox Church in this country."

The reason the opposite could not have happened is because the Orthodox Church is more ethnic than "One."  Hence the constant need to state the canard:  "Keep in mind that all issues of jurisdicion related to Church administration, not belief at all."  I think it is wrong to draw this distinction because the nature of the church is, or should be, part of the belief system. 

Huson[/QUOTE]

I think your analysis isn't really very reasonable, givenm the way in which immigration occured, and NOT because of the faith (which quite clearly is ONE). One major factor you are overlooking is langauge.  if you are Russian, you are not particularly interested in attending a church servic,e even of the EXACT SAME religion, where services are held in a different langauge. You saw the same pattern in the Roman chruch (which clearly are representing the same Church).  In many towns you had three or four small Catholic churches on one block.. one Polish, one Irish, and one Italian.  this says nothing about whether they worshiped the same way, that their theology was not the same.. it simpy says that people use chruch as more than a place of worship. it's a cultural center as well.

I think you are stretching to find differences wehre none exist, although certanly the various ethnic churches have some differences in "flavor", the THEOLOGY is one and the same.. and I challenge you to find examples wehre one local Orthodox Church teaches as dogma one thing, and another ethnic Orthodox chruch teaches something else entierly.
Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available.

NOTE: This post is a natural product. The sleight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual charicter and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 24, 2009 - 11:34PM #5
Huson
Posts: 44
[QUOTE=anyuta64;1041549]... One major factor you are overlooking is langauge.  if you are Russian, you are not particularly interested in attending a church servic,e even of the EXACT SAME religion, where services are held in a different langauge. You saw the same pattern in the Roman chruch (which clearly are representing the same Church).  In many towns you had three or four small Catholic churches on one block.. one Polish, one Irish, and one Italian.  this says nothing about whether they worshiped the same way, that their theology was not the same.. it simpy says that people use chruch as more than a place of worship. it's a cultural center as well.



However, regardless of how many languages, services, or church buildings there are on that block; there is only one Catholic bishop over all of them. 

... I challenge you to find examples wehre one local Orthodox Church teaches as dogma one thing, and another ethnic Orthodox chruch teaches something else entierly.[/QUOTE]

I would love to be able to do this. Unfortunately, it can't be done.  There is no authoritative baseline for me to know the teachings of the Orthodox Church.  There is no catechism, or other comprehensive document containing the teachings of the Orthodox Church, that has been agreed upon and approved by all of the Patriarchs.

Huson

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 25, 2009 - 3:46PM #6
razzputin
Posts: 119
Oh well...
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 26, 2009 - 3:30PM #7
Huson
Posts: 44

razzputin wrote:

Oh well...


My feelings exactly!

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 26, 2009 - 5:47PM #8
razzputin
Posts: 119
Thats it then.  Argument over.  We bow to your adamantine reasoning.  Nostra cupla, nostra culpa, nostra maxima cupla.  Accept my apologies, unworthy atheist that I am, on behalf of all Orthodox people for our negligence on failing to meet your own autochthonous and idiomatic standard for an authoritative baseline or other comprehensive document containing the teachings of the Orthodox Church, that has been agreed upon and approved by all of the Patriarchs.  (Whatever that means) Such a lamentable oversight on our part is really most unforgiveable and we all chagrined, nay prostrate with shame! 

Makes ya wonder what all doze monks and theologians been doing in doze monasteries all dese yearz. dunnit!  Come on guyz, put down da rakia and get buzy.  Huson here iz on ta ya!

Now go back and play wit da Catlicks!
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 27, 2009 - 12:47AM #9
Huson
Posts: 44
"We trivialize our disunity but calling it simply a disunity of jurisdictions or an administrative division -- as though the division we sustain is not a matter of the heart or essence or faith of the Orthodox Church. Jurisdiction and administration ring in our ears as merely external and relatively unimportant divisions, and so the tragedy of our division is belittled. As though our present divisions are merely the unfortunate turns of history, which we must benignly endure until they naturally go away.

"I beg to differ from such an appraisal. Such tamed and pacified descriptions of Orthodox disunity in America are untrue, inconsistent with Orthodox theology, mask the very serious nature and consequences of our present division, and steal the sense of urgency that the Spirit of God births in the hearts of the faithful in the face of disunity."

The Trivialization of Disunity
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 27, 2009 - 12:47AM #10
Huson
Posts: 44
"We trivialize our disunity but calling it simply a disunity of jurisdictions or an administrative division -- as though the division we sustain is not a matter of the heart or essence or faith of the Orthodox Church. Jurisdiction and administration ring in our ears as merely external and relatively unimportant divisions, and so the tragedy of our division is belittled. As though our present divisions are merely the unfortunate turns of history, which we must benignly endure until they naturally go away.

"I beg to differ from such an appraisal. Such tamed and pacified descriptions of Orthodox disunity in America are untrue, inconsistent with Orthodox theology, mask the very serious nature and consequences of our present division, and steal the sense of urgency that the Spirit of God births in the hearts of the faithful in the face of disunity."

The Trivialization of Disunity
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook