Viata parohiala in Ortodoxie se aseamana unei familii, in care predominanta este iubirea, care aduce responsabilitate si angajare. Nimeni nu este mai putin important si totusi nu este anarhie, in care iecare isi reclama discretionar drepturi. Se pastreaza ierarhia si autoritatea, exercitate cu discernamant si grija. Nu numai preotul ii ajuta pe credinciosii laici la mantuire. Laicii, deopotriva, il ajuta pe preot la mantuire prin rugaciune, daruire, participare, constiinta apartenentei la “familia” parohiala si prin responsabilitatea asumata. Nu este suficienta nici “aratarea cu degetul” a lucrurilor sau persoanelor neimplicate, nici indiferenta, precum nici simpla admiratie pentru ceea ce se face bine. In toate trebuie cooperare, dupa modelul treimic: Tatal condescende, Fiul concura si Duhul Sfant conlucreaza. Nimic nu se amesteca, nimic nu se confunda si nimic nu este inutil. De aici frumusetea si “umanismul” Ortodoxiei. <\/p>\n
Redau mai jos un text care arata preocuparile Ortodoxiei de peste ocean, unde minoritatea reclama o atidudine mai misionara si o colaborare mai intensa, lucru pe care deopotriva slujitori hirotoniti si laici emigranti din mediile majoritar ortodoxe nu le inteleg in toata profunzimea lor. NB: nu este suficient sa admiram initiativa si textul, ci sa vedem unde ne aflam ca membri ai parohiei, chiar si aici, in mediul auto-suficient ortodox. Textul este public pe Internet si merita lecturat cu toata atentia.<\/p>\n
Clericalism<\/p>\n
There is a very damaging, false notion that the laity are detached from the clergy, and that
\nthe clergy are significantly \u201cdifferent\u201d from the laity. A superior\/inferior model can arise
\nand if it does, or when it does, the Church suffers greatly. We lose the Lord\u2019s mandate that
\n\u201cit must not be so among you.\u201d The alienation of laity and clergy poisons us. It is
\ncorrosive; it must not be the case! The clergy are those ordained \u2013 by the \u201cAxios\u201d of the
\nHierarch, brother clergy, and laity — with a particular scope of liturgical function and
\nresponsibility. They must carry out their sacred priestly vocation in the midst of the whole
\nChurch within a structure of accountability. In particular, the priests and deacons are
\naccountable to the bishop for their stewardship of the life of the parishes. However, all
\nmembers share responsibility for the Body, with uniquely different talents, abilities, and
\nlevels of functional accountability. The priests and bishops are accountable for each
\nmember of the Body by their ordination; they are accountable to one another and for one
\nanother in priestly brotherhood; laity are accountable, in like manner, for their brothers and
\nsisters in Christ, for one another, the good-estate of their parish, their priest, their deacon,
\nthe children, and so on. We are all accountable because our love for one another \u2013 and our
\nunity in Christ \u2013 demands this of us. Therefore, we made every attempt and used every
\nmeans at our disposal to communicate with everyone in our diocese \u2013 laity and clergy
\nequally \u2013 all things pertinent to our work. We hope that as more detailed information is
\ndiscussed in the following paragraphs, you will understand why some things were not
\nrevealed, discussed openly, or remain confidential. It should be noted that two official
\nmemoranda (July 15 and July 27) were addressed to all the clergy and laity of the diocese,
\nand sent by email to every parish priest for full dissemination to the faithful of every parish.
\nAny breakdown in communication at the parish level was not within our control and we
\ndeeply regret any circumstance in which a faithful member of our diocese was left
\nuninformed and unengaged. We believe our actions acknowledged that every member of
\nthe Church \u2013 the Body of Christ — is vitally important; each must have a voice, and each
\nmust be heard. We did what was in our power and within our control to make this a reality
\nas we did our work. We beseech our brethren of the diocese of New York and New Jersey
\nto purge all vestiges of the \u201cpriest vs. laity,\u201d \u201cwe and they\u201d cynicism and suspicion so we
\ncan further develop the life of the whole Church, and facilitate participation by more and
\nmore members of the Church in the process of true conciliarity.<\/p>\n
Responsibility<\/p>\n
There are two related attitudes that constitute unseemly baggage from the past: temptations
\nthat have afflicted the Church and distorted her life and, indeed, her conciliarity. Both stem
\nfrom an abrogation of responsibility. Clericalism arises, in part, from an abrogation of
\nresponsibility by the laity in the affairs of the church, with the clergy taking over (or, in
\nsome cases, seizing) all functions. Even the loss of the traditional ministerial role of the
\ndiaconate and the true pastoral role of the episcopate with the concentration of all ministry,
\nadministration, and decision-making in the priests is a form of clericalism. In like manner,
\nthe second attitude — trusteeism — comes from a refusal of the clergy to accept their
\nresponsibility for the non-liturgical aspects of parish life, resulting in the total appropriation
\nof these matters by lay leaders. Hence, the fragmentation takes hold and festers. This
\nresults in priests being responsible for what happens \u201cin the altar\u201d with the parish council
\nassuming responsibility for everything else in the Church. One accurate way to diagnose
\nsuch examples of fragmentation in the life of a parish is \u201cdysfunctional.\u201d Both clericalism
\nand trusteeism result in a breakdown of conciliarity. The result of both is a body that limps
\n(at best) or is unable to stand (at worst). What we must finally acknowledge is this: the
\nintegrity of clergy and lay responsibility in a structure of accountability is critical.
\n\u201cConciliarity\u201d can be shown in shared responsibility with distinct levels of function and
\naccountability. In both of the dangerous reductions, function and authority become
\nidentified with power. And, power with status; and status with importance; and importance
\nwith value. There inevitably comes, by the prompting of the evil one, tremendous
\nresentment and mistrust by disenfranchised persons. If we are honest, we must confess that
\ntoo often, and in too many places, this has cursed us. Both the clergy and laity must
\nrecognize and joyously embrace their areas of function and responsibility; supporting one
\nanother in love as they fulfill their callings and vocations. The rector of a parish, or the
\nbishop of a diocese, has ultimate accountability for every aspect of the life of the
\ncommunity under his care: liturgical, spiritual, financial, legal, and administrative. But he
\ncannot do it alone; he must not attempt to do it alone as (in liturgical analogy) he must also
\nnever celebrate the Holy Eucharist in isolation from others. It must be done with true
\ninclusion and cooperation of the laity. To paraphrase, the image used by Saint Paul
\nconcerning the body is very valuable: the eye is not the foot, which is not the hand; there
\nare parts more or less presentable, more or less private. Yet it takes all the parts working
\ntogether, doing what they are supposed to be doing. All have to be united to the Head \u2013
\nJesus Christ — the real Leader of the Church.<\/p>\n
Parochialism<\/p>\n
It is sad, but true, that our diocese \u2013 for various reasons and over a long period of time \u2013
\nhas created an environment in which parochialism often became the status quo in parishes.
\nThere is no need to affix blame here; from the parish perspective this was a matter of
\nnecessity. In the absence of active and engaged involvement from a hierarchical authority
\nand the resulting lethargy in diocesan functions, is it any wonder that individual parishes
\nwould act primarily in their own best interests and see these interests as being the most
\nimportant work of the Church? How could they do otherwise? Why would they have
\nreason to think otherwise? As much as the clergy might teach and preach about \u201cthe larger
\nChurch\u201d of which we are all members, most of our faithful (including the lay leadership in
\nparish councils, choirs, teachers, etc.) do not have any tangible experience of this \u201clarger
\nChurch\u201d beyond an occasional fleeting visit by a hierarch, and that (in most cases) on a
\nonce-in-five years, once-in-ten years, or \u201cso long ago no one remembers\u201d timeframe. One
\nlayperson put it this way: \u201cFather, I don\u2019t know how the Church is supposed to be
\norganized, but in my experience of 24 years it seems to be a very loosely connected
\nassociation of independent churches.\u201d The fullness of the Church and the wonderful
\nrelational terms we use regarding her \u2013 one, holy, catholic, apostolic, conciliar \u2013 are for the
\nmost part, and in the actual experience of parish life, theoretical. It must be said, in fairness,
\nthat there are a good number of parishes that have done a fine job in making connections
\nwith sister parishes in their area, often going beyond the boundaries of the OCA. This is,
\nby God\u2019s grace, a very good thing. So too, it is a blessing to see that some parishes reach
\nout into their local communities and offer acts of philanthropy and assistance to those in
\nneed. These \u201coutreaches\u201d should continue and must be encouraged. However, the icon of
\na diocese of parishes gathering around their archpastoral shepherd in mutual faith, hope,
\nand love \u2013 laboring together in Christ\u2019s vineyard \u2013 must not only be our desire, it must
\nbecome our reality. If not, we teach and preach a vision of the Church that \u201cis in vain\u201d or,
\nGod forbid, we simply stop preaching it altogether in the face of \u201creality\u201d and sacrifice a
\nfundamental and foundational truth of what we have been called, ordained, and
\ncommissioned to be — Body of Christ. Today our diocese, in the process of this
\nhierarchical nomination and election process, is at the crossroads of challenge and
\nopportunity. The easy way of decrying the past and settling for the status quo with
\npessimism and cynicism must be denounced; rather, we hope that you, brethren, will recall
\nand renew the image of the Church in all of her fullness and seek to look toward to the days
\nwhen we shall, indeed, be a diocese of parishes united to our hierarch in a real, perceptible,
\nand observable manifestation of what it is to be the \u201clarger Church\u201d: one, holy, catholic,
\napostolic … conciliar.<\/p>\n
Conciliarity<\/p>\n
Conciliarity does not mean democracy. Conciliarity is not about majority or plurality; it is
\nnot about voting and referendums. Neither is conciliarity opposed to utilizing democratic
\nprinciples, voting, etc. when deemed appropriate. It is about wholeness and mutuality. Its
\nroot concept is found in the Russian word, Sobornost. This refers to both conciliar
\nstructure (councils) and catholicity (wholeness or integrity). It can only happen when each
\npart of the conciliar structure has complete integrity in its own personal life and its
\ncommunal life within the Church; when each is working in the proper order to build up the
\nwhole. Each \u201cresponsibility\u201d has to be functioning in \u201caccountability\u201d for it to participate
\nin the whole. Thus, the bishops must take full responsibility and be accountable to one
\nanother and to the Metropolitan, as well as to the entire Body of laity and clergy, for the
\nstewardship of their diocese or area of responsibility. The Metropolitan has to accept full
\nresponsibility to maintain the unity of the whole, the Holy Synod of Bishops locally, and in
\nrelationship with Synods of other Orthodox Churches world-wide. The Metropolitan must
\nbe accountable to the Holy Synod of Bishops for his stewardship of the office entrusted to
\nhis care. Every order or function of the Church — Diocesan Councils, Metropolitan
\nCouncil, Diocesan Assemblies, and the All American Councils — must be accountable to
\nthe structures above them, beside them, and supporting them. We should expand our
\ndiscussion of this to every area and aspect of life in the Church, and to every person be they
\nlaity or clergy, but for the sake of brevity let it suffice to say that the extension of
\nconciliarity to every member of the Church is fundamental. In short, conciliarity involves
\nresponsibility and accountability in mutual love of all and for all. To imagine that such
\nconciliarity is possible without inclusion, respect, dialogue and cooperation is little faith and irresponsibility.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Viata parohiala in Ortodoxie se aseamana unei familii, in care predominanta este iubirea, care aduce responsabilitate si angajare. Nimeni nu este mai putin important si totusi nu este anarhie, in care iecare isi reclama discretionar drepturi. Se pastreaza ierarhia si autoritatea, exercitate cu discernamant si grija. Nu numai preotul ii ajuta pe credinciosii laici la […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[62],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-237","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articole"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/dansandu.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/dansandu.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/dansandu.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/dansandu.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/dansandu.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=237"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/dansandu.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":239,"href":"http:\/\/dansandu.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237\/revisions\/239"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/dansandu.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/dansandu.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/dansandu.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}