Met. Jonah to Old World bishops: Hands Off the American Church!
April 7, 2009 by John Couretas ·
In a stinging rebuke to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America issued a call for a unified American Church and rejected any path to unity that would mean “we surrender the freedom we have embraced as American Orthodox Christians to a patriarchate still under Islamic domination.” The video here records his sermon on April 5 at Pan-Orthodox vespers at St. Seraphim Cathedral in Dallas.
Although he did not mention him by name, the Metropolitan was responding to a speech given March 16 at Holy Cross School of Theology by the Very Reverend Archimandrite Dr. Elpidophoros Lambriniadis, chief secretary of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In the speech, Fr. Lambriniadis was critical of calls for unity by both the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese and OCA and asserted that “submission to the First Throne of the Church, that is, to the Ecumenical Patriarchate” is the proper mode of unity for American Orthodox Christians.
To such a suggestion, Metropolitan Jonah said: “I would submit that, if we wanted a pope, we would be under the real one.”
He asserted that a Church dedicated to the conciliar process does not ignore the voice of the laity or the priests. The metropolitan spoke of Old World hierarchs “who are ignorant of our saints and who refuse to recognize the sacrifice of so many of those who have come before us in Christ to establish the Gospel here.”
During his sermon, Metropolitan Jonah repeatedly cited the sacrifices that Orthodox Christians have made for more than 200 years to bring the Gospel “in its wholeness” to North America. But this sacrifice, he says, is devalued by Old World hierarchs who believe that they are the only criterion of Orthodoxy.
“We can’t allow our Church to be controlled by people who have no appreciation of our culture and have to bow to the Turkish Islamic authorities,” the metropolitan said.
He concluded with an affirmation that the Church of the Apostles exists in America, in the Orthodox Church “now here in our midst. It was planted by our fathers in the faith generations ago on this continent and it has grown and borne fruit. And it subsists out of our common, sacrificial commitment to Jesus Christ. So let us give thanks to God for our unity. Let us give thanks to God for our diversity. And let us affirm to our bishops that they might tell the churches of the Old World that there is an American Orthodox Church. Leave it alone!”
Angela, again, you are going to have to organize this better. Use paragraph breaks. There are simply too many assertions in this post; nothing is defended, expanded, or developed, it all just runs together and cascades down.
[Translate]
Angela, I will re-read your comments with care, but the notion that anyone on this site (or OCL) is a modern day iconoclast is utterly unwarranted. The iconoclastic heresy effectively denied or denigrated matter in general and the humanity of Christ in particular. Nor can I see how this is in any way supported by the argument that follows.
In addition, the argument that Czarist Russia “broke canon law” by reaching out to a population that was geographically proximate makes no sense. Constantinople was in no position to do so. No one else was. Should they have suffered without the gospel, then? Moreover, the notion that Russia, as an autocephalous Church should have to get authorization from the “mother Church” assumes a fairly papal notion of the EP – which is exactly the point in contention here. (This may explain why we seem to be talking past each other.) While you reject the validity of the MP’s historically clear claims to its mission in Northwestern North America, you simultaneously assert the prior claim of a Greek sailor under a Spanish (not EP) flag. (Did he have the EP’s authorization to establish that outpost? Presumably not, since the Spanish flag would have conveyed rights to a Roman Catholic country, and with it papal authority. If you doubt that, as them.
Finally, if the collapse of the MP into chaos as a result of the revolution mitigates the authority of the MP, how is it any different from the imposition of almost tyrannical control over the Church in Constantinople by the Turks? Both suffered a martyrdom; both negotiated a politically perilous situation in order to protect, as best they could, their faithful, both have suffered terrible constraints imposed by hostile political authorities.
The EP is certainly owed a place of historical honor. So are the other historical seats. But none of them received the authority to exercise administrative control later assumed by the pope. It was certainly not important enough in any historical sense if the best one can do is an incidental, highly qualified and historically-contentious canon. (This is not to diminish the value of the canon so much as to note that, if it were as important as folks claim, one would think it would have received a much clearer, more central expression in canon law. The fact that it did not is why we are even having this discussion.)
I will, as I said, re-read your post to see what I may have missed. But my concern is that what we are seeing is a latter-day innovation being read back into history rather than the faithful expression of an ancient and commonly-understood practice. (If it was commonly-understood, there is a surprising paucity of evidence to support it.) Rather than tossing the “heresy” card back and forth, it may help to realize that the debate going on here is precisely about constitutes the “real” Orthodox understanding of patriarchal authority. Calling folks who oppose your position heretics begs the question, since that is the very issue in contention.
[Translate]
Re: 152
***This is a rather interesting discussion, but not one that I would have expected to find on a blog like this one. I WOULD not be surprised at such a discussion if one or more of the individuals claimed to be a member of one of those vagante Orthodox…you know…The Holiest Most Traditional and Absolutely Truest Old Calendar Orthodox Church in Exile and Resistence Inside and Outside North America and the Entire World!!
Al
[Translate]
Father Gregory’s blog cited this very helpful examination of the establishment of Orthodoxy in America: Jurisdictional Disunity and the Russian Mission
That it is posted on the OCA’s website should not dissuade anyone; it appears to be a very honest and critical – and much less contentious – assessment of jurisdictional claims.
h/t: Koinonia.
[Translate]
Al, I know the type and I am certain you have the name about right. Invariably this holier and more authentic-than-thou congregation – all three of them – will soon undergo further schism (in order to rid themselves of even the slightest defilement) until there is exactly half of a person left (half, because he will be forced to denounce his sinful half-self). This is what happens when we become more focused on being “right” than on being faithful to God Who is Love.
My apologies to all for posting so much.
[Translate]
Let us love one another that with one mind we may confess ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit’. My only agenda is to defend to the best of my ability the sanctity and honor of His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew l Archbishop of Constantinople and Pope of New Rome. Make no mistake that he and his role do not require defending or explaining but I am compelled to defend His All-Holiness as the head of my family. My duty is not derived from my own sense of perfection or innocence but more so from my Agape Christian Love and Loyalty. I do not take pride in my own words or ideas and sometime I unknowingly misspeak but I do so in good faith and without any personal or political agenda. I strive to educate myself in spiritual matters. ‘Holy things are for the Holy people of God’. My only regret is for the times I may have publicly or privately said or behaved in any manner which might reflect poorly on my Holy Mother Church. I am not angry or embittered I am merely defending my church not for egotistical reasons but because such disrespect for my church is paraded before my door. The entire situation is disheartening and saddening to me. It is horrific to bear witness to the falsehoods and salacious accusations that have been circulating. In His service, I remain, an unworthy servant of God.
[Translate]
George, I just read your critique of the link I posted in #154. Well done and compelling.
[Translate]
Chrys, you are kind. I just posted another response to Fr Herbel’s response. Hopefully it will be posted soon.
[Translate]
Chrys,
Re: Tower of Babel
I just happened to bump into this article, entitled “Ethnic Identity, National Identity and the Search for Unity”, presented by Archbishop Makarios of Kenya, which made the following reference. I thought to myself, “He said it ALMOST as well as Chrys!” LOL…
Read the entire article.
This article was originally posted on the website of the patriarchate of Alexandria. Not sure if it is still there.
Best Regards,
Dean
[Translate]
I doubt the honesty of the EP’s concern regarding the present canonical irregularities the United States.
The EP sent representatives in the first and founding general assembly of the WCC (1948). The reaction was a strong protest from ten leaders and representatives of the Autocephalous Churches. Even back than it was obvious that the WCC is aiming towards the creation of an “Ecumenical Church.”
The ever-memorable Father Justin Popovich characterized the WCC as “a heretical, humanistic, man-made, man-worshipping association” and regarded the position of the Orthodox towards the ecumenical movement and the WCC as “deplorably and hideously at odds with Holy Tradition, slavishly degrading the Holy Church” (Full text of the Memorandum in Koinonia, March-April 1975, pp. 95-101; also in Orthodoxos Typos, No. 235/June 1, 1975, and in Orthodoxos Enstasis kai Martyria, Nos. 18-21/January-December 1990, pp. 166-173.)
At the WCC’s 60th anniversary the Ecumenical Patriarch,
The Orthodox World should be concerned with the ecumenical “movment”/ heresy. A systematic study of the “canonical irregularities” of the EP’s actions would better benefit Orthodoxy. This needs to be done before the “holy and great” synod.
The position of the EP gives us some sense of where they are going: a united Christianity and aiming ultimately at one universal religion, a “pan-religion.” that would fit in the model of a single united humanity (globalism). This is without doubt an utopian view, an ideology.
[Translate]
Angela said in #156:
I get your point, Angela. I am in total disagreement with it. I find your position to be archaic nonsense without grace or love. Continuing to post with such a petulant attitude only confirms to me your unwillingness to listen or to really search for the the will of God in our mess.
I have never questioned that the EP has a significant role to play in assisting Orthodox unity in the United States. I would welcome with joy any constructive action. So far, it has either rejected that role or actively worked against any unity with a dogged obtuseness, seeking unity with Rome in the meantime.
What about Jesus Christ? What about the Church? What about salvation for all peoples? Do we worship in spirit and in truth or are we Samaritans?
If the actions of the EP are of God, they will bear Godly fruit. If not, they and the EP will wither. Just as the possibility that the AOCA may well implode because of the ungodly actions of Met. Philip; or the near destruction of the OCA by the ungodly actions of her hierarchs.
Continuing to post in the style of writing you choose means, to me, that you don’t really wish to communicate. You merely want to be bombastic and inciting. You do not appear to be concerned with ideas and their consequences, only with how you feel. Your style of writing reflects that. You appeal to and write from the passions not with a desire to acquire the Holy Spirit so that we may know the Truth together.
Your attitude and approach merely strengthens the idea that GREEKS don’t care about the Church or the people in the United States, only about the GREEKS.
[Translate]
There seems to be this false and evil notion operating out there that all jurisdictions besides Constantinople are confined to certain canonical boundaries and Constantinople’s boundaries (I assume by virtue of Canon 28) are not really boundaries at all but the rest of the world outside of the jurisdictions of local churches. So when those defenders of the Phanar suggest that other jurisdictions like the ROC are breaking canon law by forming missions outside their canonical territory they rely on canons which say that no Church should interfere in the canonical territory of another Church.
Canon 28 simply does not mean what they suggest it does. We who know this to be true then read their assertions about Churches not engaging in any missionary efforts beyond their canonical jurisdictions and are left scratching our heads: Did a council somehow negate the Great Commission? How is Orthodoxy supposed to spread if not by Churches sending missions outside their jurisdiction?
I am convinced that the Phanar’s interpretation of Canon 28, minted under Patriarch Meletios IV, is simply a bald faced lie. They know it has no basis in the text or subsequent history but they say it anyway, hoping that by saying it long enough it will gain gradual acceptance and become a Known Fact – - which it appears to have become in the Greek community, if not anywhere else. They do not think of it as a lie. They think of it as the Greek Church taking up for itself, an unfortunate political game which hierarchs (they probably believe) must engage in. This is very unfortunate.
Russia’s mission work here is only uncanonical if this territory belonged to another Orthodox Church. Since Canon 28 (contrary to the disingenuous assertions of the faculty of Holy Cross) did not give all barbarian territory everywhere to the EP (and certainly not “explicitly” so, as the HC faculty misleadingly asserted), then the America’s belonged to nobody and everybody. All things should be done in an orderly manner and so the Churches should coordinate and decide the authority structure here. They have not. Earlier, there is considerable evidence of widespread acknowledgment of Russian jurisdiction here, but the Bolshevik Revolution intervened.
In short, Constantinople is flat out lying. They know it’s a lie and they say it anyway because if it were to be accepted it would give them power. It’s that simple.
The arrogance involved here is astounding. The only time that I have ever encountered such arrogance is in reading certain assertions of Roman Catholics with regard to other Christians (including the Orthodox).
In fact, the whole thing is eerily reminiscent of Rome. The EP constantly referring to itself as the “Mother Church”, boasting that it deigned to bestow autocephaly on this or that Church, etc.
If there is a Mother Church it is Jerusalem. Constantinople was not at all notable before the capital of the Empire was moved there in the fourth century. Tell me again, which Apostles preached, lived or died there? It inherited primacy by default when Rome fell into heresy. It was Uniate for a period. It claims the sole perogative to grant autocephaly without any canonical basis whatsoever. Today there is no Constantinople, only Istanbul, run by secular and Muslim Turks, who may well not allow the Patriarchate to survive on their territory. This hardly justifies a place of preeminence as measured by the criterion of the Fathers who elevated it on the basis of its imperial status.
Those Greeks in the Phanar and in this country who defend this nonsense need to wake up and let it go before they cause a permanent rupture in relations with the other Orthodox. It makes them all look either delusional, dishonest or so tied to ethnocentric mythology that they can’t be trusted. There is no Eastern Pope and there is not going to be.
[Translate]
Angela, re #150. this is when things start getting desperate. The legend of “Don Theodoro” is a canard. If he existed, and if he was Greek, he was probably a Catholic. As far as Ioannis Fokas, he died in the Roman faith. As a Greek-American, I resent the laughable attempts of people to make fools of my civilization by asserting claims that are false. We have enough to be proud of, there is no reason to resort to lies and legends to buttress our contribution to humanity.
[Translate]
The bottom line here is that history is not Tradition. We all tend to confuse the two, but if we want clarity and truth, we’ve got to separate the confusion.
[Translate]
162: “This hardly justifies a place of preeminence as measured by the criterion of the Fathers who elevated it on the basis of its imperial status.”
So far as my (obviously limited) reading indicates, this is true for the most part. The lack of direct Apostolic foundation was, as I recall, a bit of a scandal in the original elevation of the city’s bishop to patriarchal status. Although other factors are important, if we were to apply this same criteria today, primacy would be given to . . . Washington.
[Translate]
Chrys, absolutely correct. Read my response to Fr. Lambrianides (just drink a cup of coffee first, reasoned analyses tend to not be exciting).
[Translate]
Well, I probably have the worst grammer and spelling among the people that post here. I probably should pay more attention to my mispellings, typos and grammer. As a child I learn to read and write at a later age than normal which makes writing for me more difficult than most people here. Like Dean I also like Byzantine history since the Byzantines were apart of the Roman Empire. I started having a interest in Roman history back in 7th grade and bcame intersted in Byzantine history much later.
[Translate]
Angela, you did make some good points about the fact that some Greeks were in the United States prior to the Russians, so the Greeks have just as much as a claim as the Russians do. You also pointed out two good acts by the Ecumentical Patriarchate considering the Halki Theological school and the Hospital at Barulki.
[Translate]
Cynthia,
Actually, the Greeks were not in the US prior to the Russians. Our claim to fame (I’m Greek and proud of it) is Holy Trinity parish in Neo Orleans. It was founded during the War Between the States in 1864 in land that was under Union martial law (Louisianna) in which the citizens of that state were disenfranchised.
Plus, the first priest was a Ukrainian (and we’re not really sure about his credentials) and the majority of the parish was Serbian. In addition, there was no Greek jurisdiction in the US operating at that time anyway. Although this parish was founded 3 yrs prior to SF, there was a Russian episcopal presence, administration and yes, diocese, in North America.
[Translate]
Gets better: not to belittle Holy Trinity NO (a lovely parish, and full of Southern Hospitality as I found out last year: in my dream Synod, its bishop would be the Metroopolitan of the South, defender of the Greek usage), but Honcharenko came because the Russian warship Alexander Nevsky had stopped in Athens from NO, and informed the CoG of the NO parish founded by the Greek Consul (the Greek counsul in SF, btw, helped founded the future HTC (OCA), the roots predated HTC in 1864). Honcharenko ended up demanding an antimens in SF
http://www.holy-trinity.org/history/1898/04.01-27_RAPV-SF-History.htm
http://www.holy-trinity.org/1868/03.00.Kovrigin-Paul.htm>
Btw, since according to the EP line, the CoG has no business being in North America until 1908, according to them Honcharenko was uncanonical, not matter the state of his credentials.
[Translate]
Isa, I agree with your assessment of HT in NO. It is a lovely parish. My wife’s got kin there. “Metropolitan of the South”? I like it! I’ve even got a crest I’ve been working on. It’s borrowed from the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia –don’t panic all: the bars are taken from the Cross of St Andrew.
Anyway, back to reality: the whole Honcharenko angle never ceases to amaze me. Once on this site, I was told that the ROC had no right to be out of its borders (i.e. Canada, lower 48) because the Golden Seal which granted Russia its patriarchate back in 1549 (I think) confined that church to the borders of Russia (however you define Russia –its borders were fluid, that’s what happens with empires).
Anyway, the same thing happened to the Church of Greece. It was begrudgingly granted autocephaly by C’pole in 1850 (over the protestations of the ROC I might add, who were on the side of the EP). Like the Golden Seal, Greece’s national church was to be confined to its borders as well.
BUT GUESS WHAT?!! OK, I’ll tell you: The EP conveniently forgot this little stricture in 1908 and “granted” the CoG the overlordship of all Greek parishes in North America. Now, this is really rich isn’t it? But it gets better: According to the EP’s earlier stricture against the CoG, Holy Trinity could not be canonical because it was “founded” by the CoG according to the “new historians.”
It’s not that they can’t have it both ways, they can’t have it ANYway. And of course, your own research really fills in the picture even better.
I once heard a sardonic criticism of some molecular biologist. His detractor said, “it’s not that he’s not right, he’s not even wrong.”
Anyway, not that any of this matters to ideologues. Certain folks (like Lambriniades, the whole GOA/Phanar axis, & the guy who does Mystagogy, thanks for the heads-up btw) are content to delude themselves that the Phanar is the Eastern Papacy.
I think we all need to re-read Bradley Nassif’s excellent esaay, that the duty of a bishop is to preach the Gospel.
[Translate]