Ecumenical Patriarchate: American ‘Diaspora’ must submit to Mother Church
March 18, 2009 by John Couretas ·
The battle is joined.
Highlight:
With regards to the United States, the submission to the First Throne of the Church, that is, to the Ecumenical Patriarchate is not only fitting with the American society and mentality but also it opens up the horizons of possibilities for this much-promising region, which is capable of becoming an example of Pan-Orthodox unity and witness.
The Mother Church of Constantinople safeguards for the Orthodox Church in America those provisions that are needed for further progress and maturity in Christ.
Full text follows:
Challenges of Orthodoxy in America And the Role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
By Very Reverend Archimandrite
Dr. Elpidophoros Lambriniadis
Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod
(Chapel of the Holy Cross, March 16, 2009)
Reverend Protopresbyter Nicholas Triantafyllou, President,
Reverend Protopresbyter Thomas Fitzgerald, Dean of the School of Theology,
Reverend and Esteemed Members of the Faculty and staff,
Dear Students,
It is an exceptional honor and a great joy for me to be here today, among you, with the blessing and permission of His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch and the consent of His Eminence the Archbishop of America, in order to share with you some thoughts regarding the present condition of Orthodoxy in America and our Ecumenical Patriarchate’s position towards it.
You have, my brothers and sisters, the privilege to be citizens of a country which determines to a great extent the fate of many people on our planet; a country where pioneering technologies as well as ideas and philosophies have been discovered and disseminated. The cultural peculiarities and characteristics of the United States find also a reflection in, as it is only natural, and exercise an influence on the religious communities of this country. It is far from accidental that none of the “traditional” religions (coming either from Europe or elsewhere), remained the same once they were replanted on American soil.
The same change can be of course observed in the case of Orthodoxy, whose appearance and development in America was influenced by certain indeterminable factors.
The first and main challenge that American Orthodoxy faces is that it has been developed in a region which, from an administrative and technical point, is that of diaspora. By the term “diaspora” we indicate that region whose ecclesiastical jurisdiction is been unfortunately claimed by a variety of “Mother” Churches, which wish to maintain their pastoral care over their respective flocks, comprised by the people who, over the years, immigrated to the superpower called USA.
In this way, the Orthodox faithful in America became organized according to their national origin and not according to the canon law of the Orthodox Church—that is, they organized themselves not in accordance with the principles of Orthodox ecclesiology which dictates that neither national origin, nor the history of a group’s appearance in a particular region but rather the canonical taxis and the perennial praxis of the Church, as codified by the Ecumenical Councils, has the ultimate authority.
According to such ecclesiological principles, in any given region there can be one and only one bishop who shepherds the Orthodox faithful, regardless of any nationalistic distinction. It was, however, the very opposite scenario that took place in America and today one observes the challenging deplorable condition where a number of bishops claim pastoral responsibility for the same geographic region.
A second challenge of the Church in America is that it was brought here by people who left their homelands at a time that these homelands were economically underdeveloped. Economic immigration created, from the very first moment, the need for these people to assimilate to their adopted land in order to achieve, as soon as possible, the high living standards of the privileged Americans and therefore to enjoy the fruits of the American dream. Towards that goal, they changed their names, they put an emphasis on the English language in every aspect of their lives, and at last they succeeded in becoming true American citizens, holding ever higher positions in the financial, commercial, academic, artistic and political life of this country. The negative aspect of this strong emphasis on cultural assimilation was the consideration of the faithfulness in one’s cultural background as an impediment to the progress and success in the American society. Thus, the complexes of an alleged inferior nationality or class that, in order to enjoy the fruits of the American dream, is supposed to eradicate any bond to its distinctive culture.
The third challenge of Orthodoxy in America concerns the manner of its ecclesiastical organization. The Orthodox faithful organized themselves in communities of lay people, who, in turn, became identified with the ecclesiastical community in the manner of the traditional organization of Christian communities. Thus, the parish (κοινότητα) being now governed by lay elected members, builds its own Church, school and other such institutions, and provides the priest’s salary. Such communal organization improves, as it is right and desirable, the role of laity in Church administration, and increases the sense of responsibility and participation in the life of the Church, offering thus the change to the Church to profit of its talented and able parishioners. On the other hand, however, four very concrete dangers lurk behind such a communal organization of the local Church:
a) That the priest might become alienated from his administrative duties, and from being the spiritual leader of the parish would become a clerk of the parish council,
b) That the parishioners would find it difficult to comprehend the rules according to which the Church is governed and instead they would follow their own secular reasoning,
c) That the structures of the parish would become influenced by the prevalent Protestant models and thus they would replicate and imitate practices that are foreign to the Spirit of Orthodoxy, and
d) That the parishes would degenerate into nothing more than membership clubs, invested with some ecclesiastical resemblance.
As you all know, one of the secrets for the success of the American miracle in its financial, political and technological aspects was precisely its desire to detach itself from the traditional models of the old world, its ability to break free from the established norms, its willingness to question whatever was considered as given or beyond any criticism. As it might have been expected, these tendencies soon found an expression within the life of the Church, sometimes in more extreme ways, other times in more temperate ways. Thus, soon Orthodox clergymen became indistinguishable from the clergy of other denominations, choirs in the western style were adopted, the liturgical tradition became more and more impoverished by being limited only to the bare essentials, etc.
Against that gradual secularization of Orthodoxy in America, a reaction soon made its appearance in the form of a number of rapidly spreading monasteries of an Athonite influence, characterized by ultraconservative tendencies, attached to the letter of the law, and reacting to any form of relationship with other Christian denominations. All of this is nothing but the manifestation of the intense thirst for a lost spirituality and a liturgical richness of which the Orthodox people of America have been for very long now deprived, forced, as they were, to embrace the Church only in the form of a sterile social activism.
The traits of the American clergy today also appear to undergo certain differences.
The secularization of the parish life, as described above, fails to inspire young men and to cultivate in them the religious vocation, so that tomorrow’s pastors would be part of the very flesh of today’s parish. That vacuum in clerical vocation is covered by candidates who, being unusually older than what was perceived the standard age, have already on their shoulders the domestic burden of a family. Thus they struggle to obtain the necessary degree that would secure for them among others the society’s respect.
Another great number of candidates to the priesthood come from converts, who possess little, if any, familiarity with the Orthodox experience and they are usually characterized by their overzealous behavior and mentality. It is of interest that the converts who become ordained into priesthood represent a disproportionally greater percentage than the converts among the faithful. The result of this disanalogous representation is that, more often than not, convert priest shepherd flocks who are bearers of some cultural tradition, but because their pastors either lack the necessary familiarity with that tradition or even consciously oppose it, they succeed in devaluing and gradually eradicating those cultural elements that have been the expression of the parishes that they serve.
It is particularly saddening that the crisis in priestly vocation has decreased dramatically the number but also the quality of celibate priests, who one day will be assigned with the responsibility of governing this Church. Lack of spirituality makes the monastic ideal incomprehensible and unattractive especially among the youth (with the exception, of course, of the aforementioned monastic communities with their own peculiarities).
Having attempted this general evaluation of the American Orthodoxy, allow me to consider briefly the Holy Archdiocese of America, this most important eparchy of the Ecumenical Throne.
The image we depicted above in rough brushstrokes holds also true for the Archdiocese. Thanks to the selfless dedication of our immigrants and under the protection of the first See in the Orthodox world, a strong Archdiocese was created that, in time, reached a level of maturity and excellence and it is today the pride of the Church of Constantinople. The Archdiocese took advantage of the possibilities that a deeply democratic, meritocratic and progressive state, like the United States, was able to offer, in order that the Orthodox faith of our fathers take root deep in the American land.
To this effect, the active participation of the lay element was, as we have seen, very important. We believe that the younger generations of the omogeneia are free of the past’s prejudices and complexes, according to which, if you wish to succeed in America you have to forget your cultural patrimony and your language in order to be left naked, so to speak, in the thorny desert of the Wild West. Today’s omogeneia has overcome that denial and has come to understand that the secret of the American civilization’s success does not lie in the obliteration of one’s cultural background but rather in the free and harmonious co-existence of people and races who have come to this hospitable land seeking a life in freedom, in faith and in dignity. Our cultural heritage and our national conscience is not, by any means, an obstacle for our progress and for the successful witness to our faith, especially insofar as ecumenicity (οἰκουμενικότης) is the heart of Hellenism and by definition alien to any form of nationalism or cultural chauvinism.
The Holy Archdiocese of America under the Ecumenical Patriarchate is the most organized, well-structured and successful presence of Orthodoxy today. This is not accidental. This success was not achieved by foregoing its cultural identity. It was not achieved by ignoring the sacred canons and the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. It was not achieved by succumbing to the temptation of secularism. It was not achieved by imprisoning itself in the darkness of the extreme fundamentalism, nationalism and sterile denial.
Precisely because the Holy Archdiocese of America occupies such an esteemed position in this country we are obliged to offer a self-criticism but also to defend ourselves against the unjust accusations that target this jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Examining, then, ourselves, I believe that we ought to be more careful towards the easiness with which we are ready to abandon our Hellenism, both as language and as tradition. As we have already said, it is nothing but a myth the opinion that Hellenism is an obstacle to the creative and successful incorporation in the American reality. Hellenism is identified with its ecumenical character and for that reason it can never be nationalistic for both of its manifestations, its culture and its Orthodox faith are concepts that transcend the boundaries of the national.
I do not support the opinion that we can today oblige everyone to speak Greek, but I think that we have to offer that possibility to those who so desire, to learn Greek in well organized schools, by talented teachers. I think that we owe our children the possibility of choice. We owe to our culture the obliteration of contempt for a language that expressed the Gospel and became the vehicle for the most subtle meanings in the articulation of the dogma by the founders of our faith and Fathers of Christianity.
I do not support the opinion that the services here in America should be done exclusively in Greek. Simply I do not understand how it is possible that any priest of the Archdiocese might not be able to serve in both languages. It is not understandable how an institution of higher education cannot manage to teach its students a language, even in the time span of four years!
My brothers and sisters, I am not one of them who believe that there is a sacred language (lingua sacra) for the Church. I just wonder why in every Theological School in the world the students are expected to learn the Biblical languages, and it is only in our School of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America that such a requirement seems anachronistic, nationalistic or conservative.
Speaking now of your Theological School, do you think that the Church’s expectation that the graduates of this School know theology, canon law, Byzantine music, be able to celebrate the service of matins, vespers and the sacraments, be able to preach the Word of God and instruct our youth in the catechism is unreasonable or excessive?
My dear brothers and sisters, allow me now to return to the problem of the diaspora and the jurisdictional diversity that one observes in the USA.
First of all, allow me to remind you that the term “diaspora” is a technical term denoting those regions that lie beyond the borders of the local autocephalous Churches. It does not mean that the Orthodox people who dwell in these regions live there temporally, as misleadingly it was argued by His Eminence Phillip in a recent article (“The Word”). According to the 28th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council one of the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch is precisely His jurisdiction exactly over these regions, which lie beyond the predescribed borders of the local Churches. The canon in question uses the technical term “barbaric” in order to denote these lands, since it was precisely referring to the unknown lands beyond the orbit of the Roman Empire.
On account of this canon, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has suffered the unfair and unjust criticism of two American Orthodox Hierarchs: Metropolitan Phillip and the newly elected Metropolitan Jonas.
It is my duty to refute the injustice directed against the Mother Church of Constantinople for the sake of historical truth and for the sake of moral conscience.
Metropolitan Jonas, while he was still an abbot, in one of his speeches presented what he called “a monastic perspective” on the subject “Episcopacy, Primacy and the Mother Churches”. In the chapter on autocephaly and primacy he claims that “there is no effective overarching primacy in the Orthodox Church.” He seems to be in opposition to the institution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, because he considers that such an institution “is based on primacy over an empire-wide synod” and that this “has long become unrealistic.” What surprised me the most in this “monastic perspective” of His Eminence Jonas was the claim that allegedly “now only the Greek ethnic Churches and few others recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate to be what it claims to be.” It is indeed saddening the ignorance of this Hierarch not only on account of History and canonical order but even on account of the current state of affairs. How is it possible that he ignores that there is no Church that does not recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate? Perhaps he is carried away by the fact that the ecclesial schema over which he presides and which has been claimed as “autocephalous” in rampant violation of every sense of canonicity, is not recognized but by few Churches and it is not included in the diptychs of the Church.
Please allow me, by way of illustration, to sample a few other points of the same article that should not remain unanswered.
Metropolitan Jonas claims that in America “there is no common expression of unity that supersedes ethnic linguistic and cultural divisions.” Does His Eminence ignore the fact that under the canonical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in America belong Greeks, Palestinians, Albanians, Ukrainians and Carpathorussians? Is this not proof enough of a common structure that supersedes ethnic and cultural divisions? Does he imply perhaps that SCOBA either constitutes a common expression of unity that supersedes such divisions?
The most provocative of his claims is that which asserts that with the formation of the so-called OCA “the presence of any other jurisdiction on American territory becomes uncanonical, and membership in the Synod of the Orthodox Church in America becomes the criterion of canonicity of all bishops in America.” It is perhaps a sign of our times that he who violated the holy canons par excellence, the most uncanonically claimed as allegedly autocephalous, makes now himself the criterion of canonicity and vitiates the canonical hierarchs as uncanonical. O tempora, o mores!
Instead of acknowledging the mercifulness of the other Patriarchates which, in spite the uncanonical status of the so-called OCA, accept it in communion, its representatives choose to subject them to such an unfair treatment that contributes nothing to the common cause of Orthodox unity. I would be interested to hear an explanation from His Eminence in response to the question “How will the so-called OCA contribute to our common Orthodox witness in diaspora by electing bishops holding titles which already exist for the same city”. Especially our Ecumenical Patriarchate not only is it not “unable to lead” as most unfortunately Metropolitan Jonas claims, but already since last October (in order to limit myself to the most recent example) has launched under the presidency of His All Holiness the process for the convocation of the Holy and Great Synod. I am not sure whether His Eminence, upon his ordination to the episcopacy, refused to put on the vestments of a bishop, which he, in the same article, and while he was still an abbot, had called as unfitting to the real nature of the arch-pastorship (p. 11).
Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy. It cannot be accepted, as often it is said, that the unity among the Orthodox Churches is safeguarded by either a common norm of faith and worship or by the Ecumenical Council as an institution. Both of these factors are impersonal while in our Orthodox theology the principle of unity is always a person. Indeed, in the level of the Holy Trinity the principle of unity is not the divine essence but the Person of the Father (“Monarchy” of the Father), at the ecclesiological level of the local Church the principle of unity is not the presbyterium or the common worship of the Christians but the person of the Bishop, so to in the Pan-Orthodox level the principle of unity cannot be an idea nor an institution but it needs to be, if we are to be consistent with our theology, a person.
The second article that I have to mention here is that of His Eminence the Antiochean Metropolitan Phillip under the title “Canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council—Relevant or Irrelevant Today?”
Metropolitan Phillip begins his argument with an entirely anti-theological distinction of the holy canons into three categories 1) dogmatic, 2) contextual and, 3) “dead”.
I would like to know in which of these three categories, following his reasoning, His Eminence would classify the canons of the Ecumenical Councils that demarcate the jurisdictions of the ancient Patriarchates. Are they “contextual”—subject, as it is, to change? Does His Eminence believe that in this way he serves the unity among Orthodox, by subjugating the holy and divine canons under the circumstantial judgment of some bishop?
Based on the above distinction, and although he accepts that canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council is not “dead” (since there is so much debate about it), he affirms that indeed it gives certain prerogatives to the Ecumenical Patriarch, on the other hand, however, he claims that this happened for secular and political reasons that have nothing to do with today’s state of affairs. Implicitly and yet all too clearly, Metropolitan Phillip implies that the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch can be doubted. The question then is: does His Eminence know of any Church whose status (Patriarchal or Autocephalous) were not decided according to the historical conditions that they were current at the time? Or, does His Eminence know of any Church that has received its status on the basis of theological reasons exclusively? Every administrative decision of an Ecumenical Council is equally respected to perpetuity together with its dogmatic decisions. Imagine the consequences for the Orthodox Church if we begin to re-evalutate the status of each local Church!
The correct interpretation of canon 28 is considered by His Eminence as “novelty”, by invoking only sources of the 20th century, while it has been scientifically established already by the late Metropolitan of Sardeis Maximos the uninterrupted application of the canon in question during the history of the Church of Constantinople.
The question, my brothers and sisters, is rather simple:
If Constantinople was not given that prerogative by canon 28, how was she able to grant autocephalies and patriarchal dignities to the Churches of Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Czech Lands and Slovakia, Poland and Albania? Under the provision of which canon did Constantinople give the right of jurisdiction over the remaining of Africa to the Patriarchate of Alexandria in 2002?
And if the Ecumenical Patriarchate has not granted the Patriarchate of Moscow the privilege to bestow autocephaly as it pleases it, then what gives it the right to do so on the expense of the Orthodox unity?
Summarizing my lecture, I wish to call your attention to the following points:
1. The Ecumenical Patriarchate is a Church that undergoes martyrdom, a Church that often has received unfair criticism, especially by those Churches which were most richly benefited by it. At no point, the spirit of nationalism took hold of the Ecumenical Patriarchate because that is incompatible with the concepts of Hellenism and Ecumenicity (ecumenical character) as well as with the Christian Orthodox faith. The proof of this emerges in the most decisive manner throughout the 17 centuries of its history, during which it never Hellenized, not even attempted to Hellenize the nations to which it gave through its apostolic missions the undying light of Christ. What better example than the Slavic tribes which owe even their alphabet to the Thessalonian brothers Cyril and Methodios. I, who speak to you tonight, although I am an Antiochean from my maternal side, nevertheless I serve as the Chief-Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Church of Constantinople.
2. The Ecumenical Patriarchate neither had nor has territorial claims against the sister Orthodox Churches. That truth is testified by the fact that, although the Patriarchates of the East were virtually destroyed during the difficult times of the 17th and 18th centuries, nevertheless, the Patriarchate of Constantinople was taking the care to have a Patriarch elected for those Patriarchates, supporting their primates in every possible way.
3. The submission of the diaspora to the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not mean either Hellenization or violation of the canonical order, because it is only in this way that both the letter and the spirit of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils is respected. The Mother Church knows, however, that such a submission is difficult to be accomplished under the present historical conditions. For this reason, and by employing the principle of economy, it was suggested and it has now become accepted in Pan-Orthodox level, that there will be local Pan-Orthodox Episcopal Assemblies in the diaspora (like SCOBA in the US). The principle of presidency is followed, namely the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate presides over these Episcopal Assemblies in order to preserve the necessary element of canonicity.
As you surely know, last October the Ecumenical Patriarchate summoned in Constantinople a Synaxis of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches. The Primates accepted the proposal of Patriarch Bartholomew to move ahead with the Pan-Orthodox preparatory meetings, within 2009, so that the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church take place as soon as possible. For the record, please note that this decision was reached thanks to the concession on behalf of the Ecumenical Patriarchate which accepted that the Autonomous Churches will no longer be invited as to avoid the thorny problem of the Church of Estonia in the relations between Constantinople and Moscow.
4. With regards to the United States, the submission to the First Throne of the Church, that is, to the Ecumenical Patriarchate is not only fitting with the American society and mentality but also it opens up the horizons of possibilities for this much-promising region, which is capable of becoming an example of Pan-Orthodox unity and witness.
The Mother Church of Constantinople safeguards for the Orthodox Church in America those provisions that are needed for further progress and maturity in Christ.
Please allow me to conclude with the phrase of His Beatitude Ignatios Patriarch of Antioch during last October’s Synaxis of the Primates at the Phanar: “In the Orthodox Church we have one primus and he is the Patriarch of Constantinople.”
Thank you for your attention.
The problem with critical comments that are directed towards certain bishops arises mainly when they enter the secular sphere and pursue worldly ends. This is the realm of politicians and one only needs to open a newspaper, turn to the editorial section, and gaze at a cartoon. These caricatures are rightly directed towards those who view the mundane world as their playground. GOAA bishops (or any other bishops for that matter) who involve themselves in pursuits other than the Gospel, walk into a secularist trap not unlike the sword of Damocles. The pomp and circumstance of the world is enticing but it comes at a price, usually criticism and often ridicule.
[Translate]
If the following editorial from The Illuminator is accurate, it would go a long way to explaining the EP’s approach.
[Translate]
All of the supposed ‘back door’ deals within the Church will pale in comparison if the EP really has sold out his Apostolic See to Rome.
[Translate]
All of the supposed ‘back door’ deals within the Church will pale in comparison if the EP really has sold out his Apostolic See to Rome.
If he has, that greatly simplifies the questions of Orthodox unity and the GOA. They’d simply cease to matter in the equation at all as an entity.
[Translate]
Two items (I am not endorsing the idea of unity, BTW): When Pat. Bartholomew went to Rome, he and Pope JPII recited the Creed together. The Filoque clause was omitted. This is very significant in terms of ecclesiastical diplomacy and indicates Rome is willing to drop it altogether.
Internal discussions in Rome, led by Pope Benedict, acknowledge the need to a redefinition of primacy, one that leaves off jurisdictional claims to be replaced with a notion of primary or first pastor.
Steps toward unity are much farther along than most people realize. Of course, Moscow will probably never go for it. However, it the Patriarch of Constantinople does indeed become the “Eastern Pope,” then this is a price Constantinople might be willing to pay.
[Translate]
His predecessor had the same dream — and he will have the same ’success’.
[Translate]
Fr bless,
I would like to see “true unity,” one in which the items you mentioned are dropped altogether (i.e. Filioque and Papal supremacy.) Unfortunately, I fear that the Phanar is simply going to play their usual jesuitical games and accept unity along with the elevation of Bartholomew as the “pope of the East.”
This leads me to this disturbing thought: If unity between RC and EP takes place and the MP doesn’t go along with it, I fear that a horrible persecution will be unleashed on the MP and those who remain Orthodox. (I guess it’ll be too late to wipe the egg off of the faces of the +Jonah/OCA critics then.)
[Translate]
p.s. isn’t The Illuminator the diocesan paper of the GOA/Pittsburgh? This would also explain why +Isaiah, the GOA metropolitan of Denver had two services recently with the RC bishop of Tulsa.
[Translate]
Moscow will never accept a union between Constantinople and Rome. If union ever comes to pass (a huge “if”), then it will cause a worldwide schism in Orthodoxy. Further, the schism would not be contained just to the Constantinople and Moscow. It would reach deep into the GOA as well.
[Translate]
The striking probability is that, no matter how we may wish it otherwise, the Orthodox Church will continue to grow smaller. There is no reason for us who really are committed to the Truth to fight over ‘jurisdiction’. Sin alone keeps us apart.
We all know that. The sins are not hidden, in fact they are so blatant as to be undeniable. We, however, continue to use the sins of others as justification for our own.
Some even maintain that the separation is a good thing as it will allow some folks to be under a bishop who has not apostacized. Thinking, of course, that it is their jurisdiction which will remain true.
Pride, arrogance, lust of power. We are all subject to these vices as even a cursory reading of just the posts here makes evident.
We are supposed to be known by our love for each other. That can mean calling each other to account when we go astray as long as it is done in humility, but it also consists in forgiving transgressions, ignoring unimportant differences and finding common ground rather than looking for reasons to divide.
To take just one problem that every Orthodox commentator has pointed out for at least the last 50 years: ethnocentrism. It seems to be a chicken/egg catch 22. For a united American Church to occur, ethnocentrism has to be put aside, yet how can it be until we get an American Church?
For the life of me I cannot understand how anyone could conceptually reject the need for a united Church in this land. Yet people do. Why: fear, apathy, phylitism, lack of real desire to even attempt evangelization of the U.S.? I just don’t know. The only answer that really seems to be given is, because its not under the “correct” jurisdiction (fill in the blank as to which is correct).
Whatever the reasons, none of them hold water. Especially in light of the increasing nilhilism in our culture. As Ben Franklin said in the debates over the Declaration of Independence: “We either hang together or we will hang separately.” Persecution is coming. Without love of our brothers, it will be that much more difficult to endure.
If the EP really wants nonunity-unity with Rome and Met. Philip manages to tear apart the AOCA, our choices would be greatly reduced. Union with Rome under the conditions outlined in the Illumniator article is heresy. Antioch seems to be withdrawing from her commitment to Orthodoxy in this land for this land. We really don’t know about Moscow. Certainly the smaller Slavic jurisdictions probably have neither the will nor the resources to expand. ROCOR I don’t understand at all as they seem to be capable of producing great sanctity and great sanctimony.
No course of action is going to be easy. But the status quo can no longer be maintained. We will either become more cohesive around the Holy Tradition or we will fracture even further.
[Translate]
Too glum, Michael. While it seems clear that becoming or remaining Christian will become more difficult, the clarity of the Gospel, as it is comprehended (and even practiced in places), in our Orthodox Christian faith can be a shining beacon. All that is needed is for people to live it.
I am not so sure the Orthodox Church will contract. I’m not even sure if our present trials indicate contraction is inevitable. Rather, I see them as necessary in a sense; part of the struggle that arises as we discern, even hammer out, what it means to be Orthodox Christian in a culture that increasingly sees any reference to transcendent and enduring truth as irrelevant.
Much of this irrelevancy however, arises not from an innate hostility to enduring truth (even though committed nihilists live among us), but because Christianity has become so acculturated that it has lost its savor. Having said this, there are many people looking for certainty, transcendence, and enduring truth. All we need are laborers in that harvest.
Times of difficulty, hardship, even threats can also be times of great creativity. Just look at the lives of the apostles. As difficulties increase, the sheep will be separated from the goats. You will see much consternation, but you will also see miracles. That age is already upon us.
[Translate]
Fr. Hans, you are probably correct about my glumness. I agree with you that our current difficulties are necessary to break up the false divisions that divide us without cause. Unfortunately, there will be many who will cling to what divides rather than allowing the unity of Christ to manifest more fully. I may even be one of them. Emotional attachments to doing things a particular way are hard to let go of. It becomes difficult to discern what is proper obedience. That is the one of the problems with what is happening in the AOCA right now.
[Translate]
“Then, we could stand to see the two churches, Eastern and Western, uniting in our times, which is the wish of Christ Himself, as it is the wish of those who follow Christ’s will. So, let us hope that the will of Christ will prevail against the will of those who do not actually care about His will to be done on earth . . .”
Yes, of course. Deus vult! I’m not sure why anyone would say that the “uniting” of the Church with a heretical body is the will of Christ Himself – - unless they have no serious respect for doctrine, but we’ll get back to that in a minute.
More deeply, if Rome had wished to accept the Orthodox faith corporately, they have had ample opportunity to do so during the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. That’s not what they are interested in. What they are interested in is giving up as little as possible of Roman prerogatives while throwing enough bones to unwitting or foolish Orthodox to convince them that unity is something they could hold their nose and accept.
When a Pope stands at St. Peter’s and denounces the doctrine of Papal Infallibility and of universal immediate jurisdiction, when renounes any and all claims to powers not given to him as a bishop or by the Seven Councils, when he abolishes the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory, when he breaks his own Western Patriarchate up into smaller autocephalous churches, and about a half dozen other Orthodox reforms, then you will know that Rome is serious and wants a unity based on integrity and not on horsetrading that is disrespectful to both Orthodoxy and to traditional Roman Catholicism. I’m not holding my breath.
For all the good they do on the abortion front, Rome’s primary animating principle remains the worldly and spiritual power of the Vatican. Doctrine only matters when it serves this interest. This is perhaps why they and Constantinople have this romance: Constantinople’s primary animating principle remains the worldly and spiritual power of the Phanar (see Constantinople’s current interpretation of Canon 28 of the IVth EC).
As to Michael’s point,
Sadly, I agree with him to a considerable extent. There are some hard lessons the Orthodox are going to have to learn if we wish the Church to grow – - here or anywhere. Among them are that we have to regain our traditional understanding of the roles of men and women in the family. When married Orthodox couples again begin to trust in God’s providence and commit to having as many children as God gives them, when we make our churches seeker friendly by minimizing ethnic facets like language and ethnic holidays, when we regain a sense that seekers respond to traditional attitudes and practices as an (often welcome) demand on their self discipline, and when we make evangelism a permanent committee on every parish council which is supported as much if not more than other committees, then we will change the dynamic of Orthodox decline.
I see some if this in some parishes I have visited, but not most. All these things should be preached from every pulpit and frequently encouraged in festal encyclicals.
I fear that we really do not see the writing on the wall. Or, if we do, we simply have surrendered to the idea that the problem is insoluble or the solutions are so demanding or terrible (from a cultural/political perspective) to contemplate. The most seriously politically incorrect change that has to be made is to subordinate the careers of women to their reproductive role, and not vice versa.
In any case, in this evil age, I see preservation and mild progress on these fronts as the best that can be managed. And, also sadly, I think it will have to get much worse before many Orthodox wake up.
[Translate]
Scott, while you may be correct in your assessment of the traditional and ontological male/female roles need to be re-emphasized, I think you are wrong in your starting point. When men start being men instead of greed/power driven metrosexuals, that may allow women to be women. When men are willing to give themselves as a living sacrifice for their families (that does not mean spending all the time at work), being faithful, giving of ourselves in all kinds of ways. When we actually honor the women in our lives for all of the gifts they have, when we are willing to conform our own life to Christ sufficiently to be able to lead a family in Christ; to both model Christ for our children as well as instruct and pray with them, then women will have something to return to. Given the current exerable state of so many men, it is an awful lot to ask of women.
In any case, it involves a lot more than just the roles since our entire culture is now founded upon the industrial-capitalist model that demands all ‘workers’ be in the ‘work force’ or be deemed as unproductive and therefore parasitical and of no value. Children are a positive hinderance for the same reason.
Autocratic statism is the end game here. Having and maintaining genuine families has become a radically revolutionary activity, just as cherishing human life as intrinsically valuable.
The healing power of traditional culture and Christ is amazing however, but that includes a proper celebration of the traditional/Christianized values of the Arabic, Greek and Slavic cultures, not the secularized versions. Eschewing all current political ideologies no matter what they promise for they are all rooted firmly in the lies of the world. The Church must regain her prophetic voice founded upon the members of the Church living transformed lives. If we are unwilling to allow the Holy Spirit to transform and transfigure us, all of the proper doctrine and worship are simply dust.
[Translate]
Michael,
I think we are essentially in agreement. I’m not sure what you perceived to be my “starting point” though. I was speaking in the context of talking about church growth. But you are correct.
I would make one observation though. Given the current political/cultural situation here in the Western world, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for men to assume their traditional roles. There is a power problem of which I’m sure you’re aware.
In prior Christian civilization, not only the Church, but the general culture and the law reinforced the patriarchy. Alas, such is not now the case and constitutes yet another reason why I see no hope at all in democracy.
A man could act like a traditional Christian man even in this society, but too much is dependent on the good will and piety of Christian women in a society that aggressively discourages them from their God-given roles. So, on that narrow point, I differ with you slightly in that I do not see that even if men behave rightly that women would naturally follow – - not in this society.
Oh, the evil of this age!
[Translate]
Scott, not easy for either men or women. It requires kenotic offering on both of our parts. In fact, one can not do it without the other. It can only start in two hearts dedicated to God and to each other equally guided by the Holy Scripture and Tradition. One marriage at a time with great prayer and fasting.
Just putting aside the idea that marriage is all about carnality and dominance would be a start for a lot of folks. For some just remaining faithful in marriage, no adultery, no porn, no workaholic abandonment.
Think big, live small.
[Translate]
Michael,
If you give people the right to be equal partners in a marriage, you give them the freedom to have easy, no-fault divorce, etc., then you will get high divorce rates. What you’re saying is true as far as it goes; however, no man, or couple is an island. What the rest of the culture does, even if it’s just their own church culture, matters.
The fact that the law does not recognize the husband as the head of the house, that divorce is easy, etc. are the reasons we have high divorce rates today. If we disagree on anything, I think it is that you believe that it is possible to change the culture by trying to live as traditional Christians within it. I don’t think that that will change the culture. It is a very good idea in and of itself, but without the law and social expectations on our side, we’re basically playing Amish.
Eventually a revolution will come, and I mean a political one. I just hope that it’s leaders are Christians who have traditional attitudes. Until then, like you, I’m content to live the best I can in an evil society.
[Translate]
I rather doubt it is possible to change this culture, but whether it changes or not, we are still called to live as Christians. We will all be held accountable for our love of God and our love of others (or lack thereof). Certainly, a flash point for testing our ability to love and forgive and pick up our cross daily is marriage. Living as Christians gives the only hope for actual cultural change.
There is no question that the feminist movement has degraded both men and women increasing the feckless sexuality, and violence against both women and children (fallout from abortion).
Men are allowed to escape our responsibilities not because of equality but because of eqalitarianism. It is no longer seen as necessary to protect women as they can ‘take care of themselves’ after all, just like men. Men and women can be equal without being the same. Certainly we are before God. In marriage as in the Church what is required is mutual submission to Christ in love with the man leading.
[Translate]
“Men and women can be equal without being the same.”
If you tell me where it says that a husband should submit to his wife, then I’ll buy it. Real Christianity is relentlessly patriarchal. It is impossible to get the impression from the Bible as a whole or from the New Testament alone that men and women are equal in authority, especially in a marriage. We really should not meet feminism half way with this, “equal but different” nonsense. It may be a good selling point to evangelicals and those whose moral compasses have been ruined by modern attitudes, but it is fundamentally dishonest and a misrepresentation of the Gospel.
My point, and I guess I have to sharpen it in order for it to get across, is that it is impossible to have a truly Christian marriage in this society since Christianity insists on male leadership and the inequality of power between the sexes and the law here mandates otherwise. Therefore, even if the wife follows St. Paul’s advice and submits to her husband, it is merely her good will (which is nonetheless vital and important) which can change at any given time resulting in disastrous consequences. If, on the other hand, she had a legal obligation to submit to her husband then that would provide additional security to the continuance of the marriage. If you don’t believe me, take a look at how infrequent divorce was during the time when male leadership in the home was unquestioned in both the law and culture.
But, all of the above is really just me venting. Every word is true but it will be lost on practically everyone here because it’s too hard to bear.
[Translate]
Scott, are you married?
[Translate]
Fr. Jacobse,
If your point is that I would not make such statements if I were married, that is entirely possible. But it would be because I had been cowed from the truth since I had to live with a wife who’s sensibilities are shaped by modernist ideas. If I were married and living in a culture that was thoroughly patriarchal, I’m sure I would not hesitate to make such points.
I’m not really interested in finding a future ex-Mrs. Pennington. Perhaps if I were to move to a more patriarchal culture I might be willing to pursue it. But if I can’t have the real thing, I don’t want it at all.
Now, I’m happy and at peace – - which is infinitely preferable to the discord that characterizes modern marriages. Modern marriage certainly has its benefits. It’s just that, by my lights, they are infinitely outweighed by its detriments.
As you may recall from personal correspondence by e-mail, I practice law and am often involved in court cases where children are removed from the home. I see marital discord very often, whether professionally or when I see what has happened to my peers who have gotten married and lived the modern married life.
I consider that a wife can leave with the kids because she gets bored or meets someone else. I consider that kids know that adults only have very limited power over them and behave accordingly. I consider the child support cases I see where the man never wanted the divorce and didn’t want to lose his family. Bear in mind, the odds are 50-50.
Moreover, given the depravity of this culture, why would I want to perpetuate it through marriage and children? Why would I want to bring children into such a sick culture?
I don’t think I would have any anxiety about getting married if it were understood by all that I am the head of the household. But apart from the Amish, etc. who can reinforce their teaching with the threat of shunning, Christian men in this society are really at the mercy of their wives when it comes to the stability of the marriage. Half the time it fails and two-thirds of the time it’s the woman who files for divorce.
No, Fr. Hans, thankfully I’m not married.
[Translate]
I kind of thought so, not because your point is wrong theoretically, but because it lacked a certain sense of give and take, the learning that takes place in the back and forth of making a marriage work. It’s a lot like raising kids. You learn as you go, but if the commitment to love is there, on the hard side it at least serves as a brake on frustration, anger, impatience, and all the other things that provocation can bring forward, and on the easy side the sheer wonderment of talking to a person that is partly like you — someone who you understand because they share something with you is nothing short of astonishing. And this doesn’t end because they keep growing.
Marriage is the same way in a sense. You learn as you go. So while the moral precept is true, and while it is certainly true that feminist ideals harden natural dysfunction, marriage doesn’t work because it follows the precept as theory, but because it’s the only way that love can flow. And like raising kids, there’s a hard side and an easy side. Sometimes love is losing your life (I mean really losing it), other times it is joy in concord and sharing. One way or another you figure it out — never completely I think, but certainly more deeply.
So don’t let the breakage you see around you discourage you Scott. There might be a good woman out there for you, if you are at all interested that is. Either way, single or married, both ways of living can be blessed.
Something is wrong with this analysis but I have to think it through. I’ve picked it up in other things you wrote. I really like what you write, but I think that there is more beauty in the world than you see sometimes.
I just had an insight. In order to see the beauty, you have to bear the stream of sorrow that runs through life too. You bear the sorrow (you make the sorrow bearable) by loving the the people that God brings to you to help. And be very careful with anger.
[Translate]
Fr. Hans,
You know me well enough by now to realize that flowery prose is lost on me.
” . . . marriage doesn’t work because it follows the precept as theory, but because it’s the only way that love can flow.”
I’m not sure what you’re talking about here, but I think we’re talking past each other. Marriage doesn’t work because it doesn’t follow the precept. Surely you know the empirical data. There are more important things besides our emotions (although they are important). Let love flow sounds a bit “60’s”, don’t you think? The modern world has destroyed the institution of marriage in this country. For those that wish to take the plunge at least they know what’s in store for them – - it’s not really Christian and it’s nothing at all like the traditional model of marriage that prevailed for 1900 years.
Enough said by me on the subject. It’s kind of a tangent from the topic we’re under.
[Translate]
Hi Scott, Fr. Hans kinda beat me to the punch with his question, and his response to you is very kind. Basically (after 36 years of marriage and having been a marriage counselor) I’d say the biggest failure in our culture is on the part of men, not women. The Scriptures give men the “primacy” which is ultimately the harder role in marriage: Love your wife as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her. If you approach marriage as if you are God the Father (ie., authoritarian) without the sacrifice of your life for her, you’ve lost your wife. There are women out there who will submit to a man who is the image of Christ to her. What better thing in this culture than to bring children into it who might be salt and light in the darkness. As Fr. Hans noted, as a lawyer you’ve seen the dark side, perhaps too much, and that is sad that your concepts and expectations of marriage have been tainted by that so deeply. Marriage is hard. Biblical Love is hard. Without men who will submit to being crucified for unloving, disobedient, wayward and ungrateful women there can be no Christ-ian marriage. May you find someone you can sacrifice your life for.
[Translate]
Sorry, Fellas, but I gotta go with Scott on this one.
Everything posted so far by everybody is accurate, both theoretically and reality-wise, but as I discern Scott’s points, society has definately eschewed/vilified/etc. the masculine/patriarchy. This has led to the collapse of society and the “war of all against all” that is permeating the American underclass. Just by assaulting the masculine principle the “dogs of war” have been unleashed. And all for what? So women could be sexual predators? It’s gonna take a lot more than repentance. Just like birth control, the toothpaste has been squeezed out of the tube. the best we can hope for is attending traditionalist Orthodox churches where families take their responsibilities seriously and reinforce each others’ phronema. And even then, it’s iffy.
[Translate]
Steve,
That’s all very sweet. But until you or Fr. Hans actually address the dynamics of cause and effect on a culture wide basis, you’re not going to be very convincing at all.
“Without men who will submit to being crucified for unloving, disobedient, wayward and ungrateful women there can be no Christ-ian marriage.”
You sound like a masochist. Um, part of my point is that men didn’t have to put up with so much when we had a cultural and legal concept of the patriarchy in place. Women would be much more reluctant to incur the wrath of the husband, of their peers and of the law.
But what you’re saying is instructive of how much this touchy feely feministic culture has affected you. I do not suggest for a moment that a husband does not have a Christian duty to love his wife. And that is still part of our culture and our law (insofar as the law takes such a thing into account; i.e., a duty of mutual support). What it does not take into account is the duty of the wife to submit to the husband. We downplay that as often as possible or omit it entirely, even the Orthodox, because it is so culturally offensive, even in Orthodox circles. It’s like the Greek saying about the husband being the head and the wife being the neck. It totally negates the duty of submission.
Compare your ideas to those of the Fathers or of Orthodox who lived over a century ago. Then come back and tell me about it.
[Translate]
George,
Amen.
[Translate]
What I mean by “love flows” is that the relational dynamics are such that some measure of real communication, communion to some degree (sometimes more, sometimes less) can still occur. I don’t mean by the term an Oprah-esque idealization of sentiment.
I’m no expert at this, I am not a marriage counselor, I haven’t even developed a vocabulary to describe what I am trying to describe. Nevertheless, love could be described as a state of being, that is, a way of orientation towards the other person. Sometimes it comes easy and sometimes it is very hard. The hard parts are where it is easy to fail. Sometimes love means holding your tongue when you want to yell; listening, really engaging the person while pushing out of your mind the thing you might otherwise want to do; driving to the store to get something even though you are dead tired; listening to the same complaint even though you already understand it (women need to express the same thing several times I’ve learned) and so forth. Love, in other words, is most often a verb, and lots of times it takes interior work to make happen.
The remarkable thing is however, that if you make this sacrifice, things tend to work to the good.
[Translate]
Hi Scott and George, I know this whole discussion is somewhat off topic (it does impact the concepts of “primacy” and authority etc.), but as much as I agree with Scott’s point that modern law and culture has failed to reinforce the notion of submission, I’d submit that it has failed to reinforce the concept of love as it is biblically defined. I wasn’t being facetious nor masochistic in my comment about love, I think it is absolutely patristic and is taught in our Holy Week hymns regarding the nature of Christ’s sacrifice for the disobedient, ungrateful, clueless and wayward, and by St. John Chrysostom’s “On Marriage”. If we are going to critique the culture, let’s critique it in a “Trinitarian” order: the failure of men to be a true “head”, have primacy defined by love as God loves in Christ, THEN talk about the wife as “the Church”. Again, I belive Scott’s observations are correct, the role of women has been gutted of any form of “submission” to any authority within marriage by our culture. However, I am also a believer that men’s roles have been gutted of the Gospel too, to be defined by utilitarianism as a support of a lifestyle is not “love”. Men must first must fulfill their “image and likeness” and not follow or be mere reactors to women’s attitudes and fallenness like Adam in Paradise. Had Adam obeyed God and not followed Eve but sacrificed himself for her instead of reacting in the same manner of her disobedience, we might not be in this discussion. I think we are in basic agreement of the influence of culture on marriage and the ease with which women can bail out, but I also think the approach of saying “if we only had a culture and laws that supported my authority as a husband I’d have a better chance at a good marriage” is a bit naive about the nature of what it takes to make a marriage work in any culture and age. St. Paul wouldn’t have had to deliver Ephesians 5 if the “patriarchial culture” of his day was a panacea for husbands with unsubmissive wives. Anyway, ’nuff said, I think. We both see and have seen the same effects of culture on marriage in our mutual areas of expertise. No controversy over that. Regardless of culture, it ultimately comes down to how can I make MY marriage work with MY wife.
That is much harder than theorizing about culture and marriage, I’m here to tell you.
[Translate]
Steve,
yeah, we veered off-topic somewhat. Let’s get back to criticizing Lambrianides. That was much more fun and productive.
[Translate]
My point is not that cultural attitudes about marriage are not off base. Clearly they are. I think it is a mistake however, for Scott to make a decision about marriage based on the wreckage he sees around him. And I certainly don’t agree that he should not have children because other people mess up their kids. That strikes me as sharing the same affliction that he criticizes — a kind of terminal hopelessness.
[Translate]
Sounds good George. BTW, I read through it again two days ago. I have to say, it’s a singularly unimpressive analysis. It’s flat; nothing remarkable, nothing new, no real insight.
[Translate]
“but I also think the approach of saying “if we only had a culture and laws that supported my authority as a husband I’d have a better chance at a good marriage” is a bit naive about the nature of what it takes to make a marriage work in any culture and age.”
I think it is a mathematical certainty that, on average, that is the case. When the patriarchy was a fixture in the law and the culture, divorce rates were lower, abortion rates were lower, etc. It’s just a fact. What I think or you think can’t change it.
You guys are too focused on what might possibly work in a particular marriage in the context of this evil culture. As far as that goes, I don’t disagree with you. But as far as changing the context – - it will not. Unless there’s systemic change you will continue to see high divorce rates, broken families, the emotional disorders in children and adults that result from a broken home, high abortion rates, etc.
From 1 Corinthians:
7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
[Translate]
Well, yes, but how is this any different than saying: “Unless there is a decrease in high divorce rates, broken families, the emotional disorders in children and adults that result from a broken home, high abortion rates, etc., you will continue to see high divorce rates, broken families, the emotional disorders in children and adults that result from a broken home, high abortion rates, etc.”?
The question, in other words, hangs on what you mean by “systemic change.” Steve’s point holds I think. We are at the place where “systemic change” — cultural transformation really — has to begin from the inside out, much in the way abolition worked. Change the culture, politics will follow — if we don’t abandon our freedom first. Abandon freedom (an increasing possibility the way it looks), and the dynamic changes significantly. The culture war still exists in other words, only now the stakes are considerably higher.
[Translate]
What I mean by “systemic change” is a form of government that is less “free”, more patriarchal and less dependent on public passions. I imagine that as things get worse in the coming years and decades that the chances of such a revolution (or a collapse and restructuring which would accomplish the same thing) will increase. I know it’s unthinkable to many right now, but it is always unthinkable for those in a dominant civilization to conceive of the end of their established order – - and it always eventually happens. Lord, let it come quickly.
[Translate]
I sympathize with Scott here. Why open yourself to the wreckage? Simply take the issue of abortion. It is shockingly rampant. The Guttmacher Institute states that a third of all women in the U.S. will have had an abortion by the age of 45. If your wife wishes to kill your children, there is nothing that you can do to keep that from happening. Now, you can say that such would never happen if you support your family and if you find the right woman to marry. Yet, how is it possible to find the right person in the cesspool of modern America? It is rare to find a man with sense and even rarer to find a woman so endowed. The culture is utterly corrupt, and it cultivates withered souls.
Moreover, even if two good people marry, then the “village” is against them. How can one raise the salt of the earth in such an environment? How often do you see wonderful parents who seemingly have done everything right churn out vipers? With regard to this issue, people sometimes talk about the early Christians and their experience in the pagan empire. We are worse off as a society, though. We may have religious freedom, but the Greco-Roman pagans were far more rational than the post-Christian West today.
In case you think that I overstate the case, please consider Stephen Baskerville’s “Divorced from Reality.” It is sickening.
In law, culture, education, and work, our social set-up is very corrosive to sane family life. I hate to think it, but we do deserve to die off as a society.
[Translate]
All Empires of the past, whether Babylon, Persia, Macedonia, Egypt, Rome, Britain–without exception–collapsed through their own internal decadence.
Such will be the case with ours, as well as all future “World Empires”. They too will have their struggle, their spiritual awakening, their rise to power, their prosperity, their opulent decadence, their spiritual death and their inevitable collapse.
I dare say that this is what St. John’s “Revelation” is describing….the dissolution of every “earthly” city and kingdom until His Heavenly Kingdom–the New Jerusalem–upon the final trumpet call, triumphantly descends upon the rubble of these perishable kingdoms. A Kingdom that isn’t ruled by fiat totalitarian dictatorship, nor a lustful ruling Mob, nor a greedy Monarchy, nor a self-worshiping Republic, nor a prideful oligarchy—but ruled by the love of God.
The “symbols”, “tropes” and “archetypes” of St. John’s book of “Revelation” are realized in every generation–past, present and future. The two “Beasts”, the “mark of the Beast”, the “False Prophet”, the “whore of Babylon”, the “bowls”, the “seals”, the “trumpets”, the “Dragon”, the “falling away”, the “two witnesses”, the “judgments”—were present in St. John’s day….but, also, in ours too.
Our struggle and our fight is not over clinging to the honors, prestige, pleasures or hopes of this world, as if this world held any sort of permanence or hope for us. For us Orthodox, it is to listen to the scriptures plea:
“come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues” (Rev. 18:4).
If we would have a share in glory, then we must first endure our “cross”. It is through the threshold of “death” that we will begin to see the dawning of “life”. And many there will be, shining as New Jerusalem, from every “tribe, tongue and nation” on earth in God’s eternal Kingdom….even Americans!!
Will God raise Hellenism? No. Indeed, His Bride has already rebuked her prophets, poets and philosophers with the “foolishness of the cross” (1 Cor. 1:18-25)….which surpasses even the Olympian heights of the Greeks.
Will God raise Judaism? No. For, by the consummated pride of believing ones ethnic heritage holds a place of honor and privilege in God’s sight, God was rejected by them. Yet, God cannot be mocked; for He stirred them to jealousy by bestowing His Spirit upon the Gentiles, pruning their Olive branch and overthrowing their “earthly” Temple within a generation, just as He promised (Acts 10; Romans 11:11-36, Matt. 24).
“For there is no partiality with God” (Romans 2:11).
Will God raise mankind? Yes. From least to greatest. For God came in human flesh (John 1:1,14) to redeem mankind– and not mankind’s “ethnicity”, “culture”, “language”, “history” or “ideas”.
What did the Lord Jesus Christ think of “primacy”?
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to be great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave–just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”
(Matt. 20:25-28)
and
“Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bond-servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.”
(Philippians 2:5-8)
Therefore, let us endure the lowly treatment from our “lords”, as examples of the meekness and humility of Christ.
As the scriptures say:
“God resists the proud, but He gives grace to the humble.”
For our lives on this earth are so very short, while eternity is so very long. We must hold fast to humility….lest, we too, receive dire chastening. But perhaps, very soon–even this very day or night–we shall inherit the joy prepared His children, and a “Mansion” which lasts forever and ever.
Amen.
[Translate]
I’ve read the EP has about 7000 Orthodox Christians under his direct care in Turkey. By comparison, there’s a Baptist church down the street from me with about 20,000 people in it, and several more of similar size in my home city (not to mention the many hundreds of smaller congregations). The dwindling of his flock is assuredly a reflection on his poor leadership. The apostles didn’t let the Roman Empire get in the way of winning souls for Christ. I don’t see why the EP should let the Turkish government succeed where Rome failed.
So rather than worry about controlling the American churches, perhaps the EP should concentrate on doing evangelism in Turkey. Take Fr. Zakaria Botros‘ example. Shouldn’t the Patriarch be doing that?
Or move the Patriarchate to New York. Then we can come back to the table and talk about his relationship to the diaspora.
[Translate]
If the Greek Archdiocese is doing such a great job according to the author, then why are the Greek churches not welcoming to non-Greeks?!? We have moved all over the country and visited many, many Greek churches, but feel the cold shoulder every time. My husband is a convert to Orthodoxy (I am cradle Russian Orthodox), and yet, we would love our little northern European mutt to learn modern and Biblical Greek someday, but we are having a very difficult time finding a sincerely warm Greek church.
Churches too ethnically oriented put more of a focus on their festivals than The Faith – even within the OCA. We are currently living on the East Coast and the ONLY words I heard from some parishioners here (OCA) for several months were, “We’re rolling perogies on Thursday for the upcoming festival and could really use your help!” At a truly Antiochian church in our area, you could clearly see their facial expressions drop when you didn’t give an Arabic name. Experiences such as these brought me to tears for months as we adjusted to the Orthodox churches on the East Coast. If you want to feel true Christian love, visit the Orthodox churches in the western United States. They are the ones producing converts, monastics, and seminarians.
If you can get the E.P. to come to NY, be sure he takes a trip westward. He will see the fruits of Orthodoxy there.
[Translate]
“At no point, the spirit of nationalism took hold of the Ecumenical Patriarchate because that is incompatible with the concepts of Hellenism and Ecumenicity (ecumenical character) as well as with the Christian Orthodox faith.”
Tell the Russians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Georgians, and especially the Romanians who have been barred or ejected from Holy Mount Athos that “a spirit of nationalism” has never taken hold of the Ecumenical Patriarchate! Is this a joke? If it is, it is a very bad joke. Constantinople has violated the prerogatives of just about ALL the Orthodox Churches, probably those of the Russian Church more than any. With its invasions into Poland, Finland, Ukraine, Estonia, China, on and on and on . . . it has shown itself to be bascially power mad, and not willing to let any other Church into a “diaspora” it claims as its own private property.
Dont like convert clergy? Quit ordaining them! Tradition? In the Greek Archdiocese? WHAT tradition? Greek Fest? Thats about as traditional as it gets! The Greek Archdiocese parish where I live, as I understand it is typical-very few go to communion; NOBODY goes to confession; a “crazy” convert tried to go to confession twice in one month and was told you only have to go once a year! The priest DOES hold some weekday services, but NO ONE goes – I was at three-and the only people at all three were the priest, the chanter, and three of those “crazy” converts! Imagine going to church during the week!
At Greek Fest in St Louis one year, I learned the NEW history of Orthodoxy. In a “Learn about Orthodoxy” talk we were told that in 1054 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH LEFT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH! No mistake in hearing-those were the exact words! Yeh, boy, thats TRADITIONAL! And those Roman Collars-yeh, those are pretty traditional too aren’t they? Just like the pews, the organs, and the Bishops that compare the Pres of the USA to Alexander the Great! Wait a minute-is that good? Obama the Great, conquering the known world! Putting all enemies to death! Worshiping Zeus . . . Hhhhmmm….
The Ecumenical Patriarchate “extend its jurisdiction” over America? I pray to God that day NEVER comes, because if it did, it would be the death of Orthodoxy in America! And using those little dioceses as an example of some sort of “variety” – a very poor example!
The Patriarchate of Constantinople, in its original territory, has NO people. It has NO diocesan Bishops, only Bishops of cities that do not exist any longer (which is also uncanonical I believe); it has no churches; it has no monasteries; it does have jurisdiction over Mount Athos, and violates the Athonite Charter every chance it gets. It wants to make Athos into a Byzantine Museum it can charge admission to, and make the real monks go away. If somehow the American Archdiocese were to successfully secede from Constantinople, the Patriarchate could no longer exist, as it would not have the money to do so. Therein lies the NEED for Constantinopolitan hegemony in America! There is MORE than one kind of green after all!
[Translate]
Well said Michael and 100% true.
[Translate]
Michael, I’m glad to see that others picked up on Rev Elpidophorus’ comments regarding the “fact” that “nationalism never took hold” of Constantinople. The problem is more deep than the Phanar’s regular intrusions into other Churches’ jurisdictions, it’s that people like the good Rev. actually believe what they said. Delusion.
[Translate]