SCOBA calls first episcopal assembly for May 2010
September 25, 2009 by John Couretas ·
SCOBA Hierarchs Convene For Special Session
New York, NY – A Special Session of the Standing Conference of the Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas (SCOBA) met on September 25, 2009 from 10:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m., hosted by the Chairman of SCOBA, Archbishop Demetrios of America, at the headquarters of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America in Manhattan. The session was attended by the following Members of SCOBA: Archbishop Demetrios, Chairman (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese), Metropolitan Philip, Vice-Chairman (Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese), Metropolitan Christopher, Secretary (Serbian Orthodox Church), Archbishop Nicolae (Romanian Orthodox Archdiocese), Metropolitan Joseph (Bulgarian Orthodox Church), Metropolitan Jonah (Orthodox Church in America) Archbishop Antony (proxy, Ukrainian Orthodox Church) and Archpriest Alexander Abramov (Representation of the Moscow Patriarchate in the USA).
Also present were the General Secretary and members of the SCOBA Study and Planning Commission representing the SCOBA member Churches.
The entire discussion was focused on the documents related to the “Organization of Episcopal Assemblies” in the regions of the world that are outside the borders of the Autocephalous Churches. These Episcopal Assemblies have been authorized by the Fourth Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference which met at the Orthodox Center of Ecumenical Patriarchate in Chambésy, Switzerland from 6 – 13, June 2009. It was decided unanimously by the Hierarchs that the first such Episcopal Assembly shall be convened during Post-Pentecost Week of 2010, which will fall in the last week of May. The likely days of the Assembly will be May 26-27, 2010. There was also discussion as to the location of the Assembly, with a specific venue to be decided after investigation of locales and resources.
The Hierarchs also outlined an initial staging process, combining Hierarchs of SCOBA with sub-committees, which will formulate the outline of the form and agenda of the Assembly.
Source: SCOBA News
Well, I don’t know how many each have but La is low in orthodoxy compared to the others because the biggest immirgant groups are from Latin American countries or asian countries like China or South Korea or Vietnam. San Fran gets more Eastern Eurpoean immirgants to comparsion for its size. The others are back east where immirgation from Eurpoean Countries are higher. Ca only 6 percent from Europe versus 12 percent or higher back east.
[Translate]
Jason, I must reiterate wha Fr Gregory says. Such calumnies are unbeffiting a Chrisian gentleman, as is your animus towards the OCA. Either put up or shut up.
[Translate]
Dear Sir,
I have made no calumnies and no accusations, unlike some who have used the term “kleptocrat” to insult Metropolitan Philip of the Antiochians or the other insults hurled at the EP,GOA and its voices.
As a matter of fact, I’ve argued for a more tempered and mature approach.
I’ve made my case against the OCA and have expressed my reservations about Metropolitan Jonah already in this discussion. Simply scroll above.
THE OCA IS AN ABJECT FAILURE and this has been illustrated.
I don’t have to keep reiterating this and talking in circles. I don’t say these things with animus but with remorse and with the hope that SOME learn from the mistakes of the past and MOVE ON to more successful models not only for what becomes of the OCA but for N American Orthodoxy in general.
Jason Bently
[Translate]
“THE OCA IS AN ABJECT FAILURE and this has been illustrated.”
That you have (at least to your own satisfaction). What you have not illustrated is how the rest of the Autocephalous Churches won’t fall by similar criteria, including Constantinople.
[Translate]
Dear Sir,
I do believe we’ve gone over how the historical parallels have no congruency in this discussion. See above.
Now if you wish to talk about the GOA, it never made a claim of being the “autocephalous American church”, but, rather, organized its diaspora and built prosperous communities. Its greatest problems today are not having adequate ministries for intermarriages, assimilates and generational shifts, but it is well capable of coordinating these ministries and has the funds to do so. All is needed is sounding the alarm and making the resolution to stop the crisis.
If you want to talk about the Antiochians, they are in a similar position to the GOA, save they are actually bringing in converts by evangelization. Although they lack the financial base the GOA does, they are well managed fiscally. They have the most promising missionary model on N American soil today.
The rest of the groups at this point will eventually be assimilated into a larger structure, that includes the OCA.
Jason Bently
[Translate]
The charge of “kleptocrat” is indeed harsh, and may be unjustified. However, one of the hallmarks of those engaged in financial misdealings is a pronounced aversion to independent audits. It is a fact that Philip shouted down a motion for an independent audit last July. This is in keeping with the two previous kleptocrtatic administrations of the OCA.
I also believe that Isa’s point about the OCA’s supposed “abject failure” compared to other autocephalous churches did not include the GOA (which is an eparchy, not a local or autocephalous church), but other autocephalous churches. One should avert his eyes to what is happening in Greece at present (and to my own sorrow as I was a big fan of the late archbishop of Athens, +Christodoulos). Let us compare apples to apples. And rather than seek to condemn the darkness, try instead to shine a light.
[Translate]
Dear Sir,
The point I have fleshed out is that the OCA was NEVER really an autocephalous church in the proper sense, nor by its acceptance of and membership in SCOBA, recognized itself as being such. (Local church and SCOBA are mutually exclusive.
So, yes, let us compare apples to apples. The OCA is like the GOA or AOA, and in no way like, say, the Church of Serbia. After all, it wants to merge with another “jurisdiction” and participates with other “jurisdictions” (not local churches) in SCOBA.
It is utterly OCD to dwell on this failed “autocephaly”.
Moreover, there have been financial statements issued by the Antiochians for years and Metropolitan Philip has indeed called for an audit. Thus, jumping the gun in the denunciations dept. here is unwarranted. In none of the financial statements the AOA has issued over the years, has it even been REMOTELY shown to be in the basket case situation the OCA has been. (As a matter a fact, it has progressively tried to look like the GOA in its SOLVENCY.)
Thank you for your consideration, however.
Jason Bently
[Translate]
You are aware that the present day Church of Serbia is the merger of at least three autocephalous Churches, and the Churhc of Romania is the union of at least 4 jurisdictions/autocephalous Churches.
Or perhaps you aren’t.
You take on the Antiochian financial books is rather interesting, because us in the archdiocese don’t know what you are talking about.
Does solvency in the GOA include legal liability/lawsuits?
[Translate]
Dear Sir,
Condescension notwithstanding, you are aware that those mergers are more or less of homogenous peoples and that they comprise the majority of the populations of the territories in question and that they have a distinct Orthodox history, spirituality, ethos, orthopraxia, etc.?!
THESE ARE REQUISITE CHARACTERISTICS FOR AN ORTHODOX LOCAL CHURCH.
It boggles the mind how some wish to fly before they can walk.
Moreover, talk about sordid innuendo! What does the GOA’s lawsuits have to do with this topic, the health of that jurisdiction or anything?!
Jason Bently
[Translate]
I believe someone has already spoken about certain jurisdictions’ laundry not being as aired at present as the OCA’s.
Can you be more concrete and less vague about “distinct Orthodox history, spirituality, ethos, etc.”
[Translate]
Dear Sir,
Romanian Orthodoxy is different from Serbian Orthodoxy is different from Russian Orthodoxy is different from Antiochian Orthodoxy, etc., with different history in the church, different experience with their lives in piety and different and native traditions of sanctity.
Jason Bently
[Translate]
Unless homogeneity and comprising a majority of the population are established somewhere in the canons, I can’t see why such criteria are important. They might work for conversion that occurs by imperial decree, but it would seem to undermine traditional evangelization efforts. It would essentially prohibit any establishment of an American Orthodox Church given the nature of how the Church developed in this country. It would have been a pretty big problem for the churches in the New Testament as well, which were neither.
The other criteria are, as Isa noted, awfully vague. Depending on how these are defined, one could qualify or disqualify any number of countries that already have autocephalous Churches. If the bar were set fairly high, I can’t see how Constantinople would currently qualify – or how most autocephalous Churches behind the iron curtain would have qualified either – or most of the current Patriarchies would qualify. In terms of numbers – and certainly political power – the US would easily eclipse many of these (which seems at least roughly similar to how Constantinople got the nod.)
That said, I would agree that there needs to be a distinct and vibrant spirituality. I just have no idea how you “measure” that. One might look at the number (or proportion) of monasteries, participation in the local churches, etc. I guess I’d be inclined to “measure” it by the presence of saints – but still, where would you draw that line?
[Translate]
Dear Sir,
Homogeneity implies nativeness to locality and a church of that locality and not of immigrants of other local churches. You can’t have a truly local church which does not represent the local people or assimilated Orthodox of other local churches.
As far as history, spirituality, orthopraxia, piety, etc. are concerned these also are traits of MATURITY which show a church has cultivated an Orthodoxy of its own, with a local character, which shows that on soil x there is a NATIVE Orthodox presence.
I would draw that line, because once the process of sanctity is started it needs to be fostered by local church x and sanctify the people of locality x and generation after generation. That is the local church’s primary obligation.
Jason Bently
[Translate]
Jason, your arguments re “homogeneity” being a hallmark of a local church is far from the mark. None of the ancient patriarchates were homogeneous. And the medieval patriarchate of Bulgaria was likewise heterogeneous. Please read Papadakis, Runciman, and Norwich for starters. It is clear that anybody who has studied Bulgaria will note that Bulgaria was a great multinational and multiconfessional empire in its heyday, as was Russia. In neither case was Christian confession viewed as the benchmark of citizenship within the empire (at least in their early stages). And I can assure you that the various Serbian factions that joined together to form an autocephalous church were riven by intense political divisions that were just as profound as ethnic divisions in their day.
Indeed, Russia under the Romanovs was far more heterogeneous than the United States. Great Russians made up perhaps 55% of the population, whereas even with massive immigration to the United States, the population is still approximately 70% European. Of course you will probably object to my characterization as “Europeans” being a relatively homogeneous grouping of people. I can assure that all nativist groups in the United States certainly consider Europeans to be a homogeneous group.
Be that as it may, the Great Russian contingent of Russia is as varied in ancestry as the English of Great Britain are. The only difference being that the Russians were able to integrate other tribes and nations into their nation without losing their Slavic and Orthodox sense of identity. The Anglo-Saxons have been able to absorb the Danes and the Normans, but only at the expense of their language and their original Orthodoxy. (Slavonic is far more similar to modern Russian than Old English is to modern English, just try reading Beowulf in the original.)
[Translate]
P.S. I meant “70% of Americans are of European descent.”
P.S.S. Your example of the Romanian church is likewise flawed. Romania is a cobbled-together country with significant Slav and Magyar populations. If we follow your argument to the logical conclusion, then the unification of the various Romanian principalities into one nation and more importantly, one Church, would indicate that the Magyars and other Christian minorities are necessarily to be left to the wayside.
This indeed happened more or less in the Balkan churches of the post-Ottoman period. Is this what you envision as effective evangelism, as opposed to the “abject failure” of the OCA (which is overwhelmingly comprised of converts from Northern European [i.e. not Orthodox immigrant] groups)?
[Translate]
Dear Sir,
You anachronistically pose a model of “nation” vs. empire.
What united peoples of Byzantium was a common ROMAN identity and culture which transcended “nationality”, likewise the RUSSIAN identity of the empire united Finns, Slavs, Asians, etc. It was centred in Orthodoxy, the enculturation of it of people x, and a common vision for the future.
This indeed was homogeneity of a given nation.
Think of it in terms of the American “melting pot” which embraces all nationalities and forges one whole.
While again in America, the only thing you have is ethnic and assimilate Orthodoxy of local churches trying to figure out how to adapt to diaspora.
THERE IS NO MATURITY for a N American local church at this time as there is no N American Orthodoxy.
All this has been stated above.
Jason Bently
[Translate]
Dear Sir,
What Romanian DNA is is beside the point. Today the people of the Romanian church are not a confederation of different racial types, but ONE Romanian people and have been so for centuries.
Really.
Jason Bently
[Translate]
“What Romanian DNA is is beside the point. Today the people of the Romanian church are not a confederation of different racial types, but ONE Romanian people and have been so for centuries.”
Ah, if it were only so.
Besides the problem of the Romani population (most of whom are Orthodox but not Romanian) and the large Hungarian population (which are neither). Romanian wasn’t united until 1918, and isnt’ today: Romania and Moldavia have seperate governments, and Bucovina is under Ukrainian occupation. And Serbia still has a jurisdiction in Romania.
[Translate]
Dear Jason,
The point I have fleshed out is that the OCA was NEVER really an autocephalous church in the proper sense, nor by its acceptance of and membership in SCOBA, recognized itself as being such. (Local church and SCOBA are mutually exclusive.
So, yes, let us compare apples to apples. The OCA is like the GOA or AOA, and in no way like, say, the Church of Serbia. After all, it wants to merge with another “jurisdiction” and participates with other “jurisdictions” (not local churches) in SCOBA.
It is utterly OCD to dwell on this failed “autocephaly”.
What is OCD is to continue to use the phrase “failed autocephaly.” Unless, of course, you want to use phrase toward the ecumenical patriarchate itself, which, of course, has lost far more of it’s adherents than either the OCA (90% by your number), the GOA (has lost 25% of it’s own members since 1970, the number would be far worse using your “members vs immigrants” measurement).
Moreover, there have been financial statements issued by the Antiochians for years and Metropolitan Philip has indeed called for an audit. Thus, jumping the gun in the denunciations dept. here is unwarranted. In none of the financial statements the AOA has issued over the years, has it even been REMOTELY shown to be in the basket case situation the OCA has been. (As a matter a fact, it has progressively tried to look like the GOA in its SOLVENCY.)
I don’t know what you’ve been smoking, but this is truly a preposterous statement. All financial statements have been unaudited. Perhaps you were not paying attention at the last convention, when people calling for an audit were shouted down, and the motion (for an audit) not even accepted. And the metropolitan continues to resist an audit to this day…no change has been announced.
Finally, your criteria for an autocephalous church can only be described as delusional…they are simply not borne out by the historical record. For example, the First Bulgarian kingdom became autocephalous (960)
only 60 years after being evangelized (864). Both the Cypriot Church and the Georgian Church were declared autocephalous approximately 150 years after their evangelism…hardly long enough to qualify for your “Maturity”.
This supposed “Maturity” is commonly trotted out by opponents of OCA autocephaly to declare it invalid…as if there were some time honored prescription for achieving autocephaly.
In fact, there is no such prescribed process. Autocephalies come and go, generally following the secular borders of the state. About the only thing that can be said is that autocephaly is generally declared by the Daughter Church in opposition to the Mother Church; a state of schism generally is declared (by the Mother Church); and the Mother Church generally recants this declaration, generally between 20 (Church of Greece) and 140 (Church of Russia) years later.
All the other criteria you list are your opinions – nothing exists to back them up…NOTHING.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but please resist calling any of them Orthodox praxis, tradition, or any other such names in an effort to cloak such opinions in legitimacy.
Autocephaly is declared when the Daughter Church decides it is ready. That’s about it. By that standard, the OCA autocephaly was actually one of the more peaceful declarations (ie no state of schism resulted).
You are now free to resume your anti-OCA diatribe.
Best Regards,
Dean
[Translate]
Dear Sir,
Again, see above. The EP is the victim of history AFTER being the major church of the empire. The State Church of Greece includes over 90% of the population of the country. Nothing here compares to an OCA which has les ethnic/assimilates today as it did in 1914 and only 20% of the parishoners it had in 1976 including ALL of its membership, a membership today which is 20% less than that of the current AOA.
Moreover, for one to talk about an autocephaly, besides having SUCCESSFUL mission on the local territory, one would have control of that territory and not leave it to an organization which would be uncanonical on the territory of a REAL local church, an organization like SCOBA, which the OCA has no executive authority in and in which it only participates.
Only the OCA’s Mother Church (and some satellites/friends) recognizes it while the EP does not, which means it does not function conciliarly like an autocephalous church, but, rather, an automous synod, which it is in effect, and a FAILED one.
My outline for what constitutes a local church is the REALITY in the Orthodox world. The history of Orthodoxy, country by country validates the model.
You don’t have an indigenous American Orthodoxy. You don’t have unity. Which you do have is the presence of ethnic/assimilate Orthodoxy of various local churches which still haven’t figured out how they are going to adapt the experiences of their local traditions to N America.
NONE of this constitutes a maturity ready for REAL autocephaly and local church.
All this has been gone over above. Please reread what has been stated instead of trying to talk things in circles in the hopes of another outcome the facts simply do not support.
Jason Bently
[Translate]
Dear Sir,
Another thing, no one said the AOA books had been audited, but that an audit was agreed to. What was said is that the financial statements showed solvency consistently and that the AOA in practice showed a healthy stewardship which supported succesful missiology on N American soil.
That in and of itself is enough to endorse the current administration and allow the books to be audited at the set time to see if there might be indiscrepancies.
Jason Bently
[Translate]
There isn’t a single Church that validates your model, including Constantinople.
When Constantinople received (or took) its autocephaly, there is a real question on whether the majority of its population was Christian, let alone Orthodox.
So the OCA isn’t in the EP’s diptychs. SO WHAT? When Antioch wasn’t (because the Phanariot’s had been shown the door-and the boot), did nearly two thousand years of where “the disciples were first called Christians” diappear? And I submit that if the OCA was just an “abject failure” that we wouldn’t hear so much from the EP’s surrogates on Metropolitan Jonah.
The Phanar has its own nationalist axe to grind: it is by no means a neutral arbiter, nor is the Phanariot cartel which tries to maintain Greek control even if it means destroying the Church and are the only ones who refuse to recognize the OCA. It may be noted that the predecessor of the OCA was the Mother Church of Albania and perhaps the Czech and Slovak lands (the Back to Orthodoxy movement there picked up after St. Alexis Toth) two Churches that the Phanar refused to recognize until forced to bow to reality.
You seem to suffer from the same myopia that afflicts the Chief Secretary of the Phanar. The Church in Alaska, for instance, is quite indigenous, quite united and has hardly any “presence of ethnic/assimilate Orthodoxy of various local churches which still haven’t figured out how they are going to adapt the experiences of their local traditions to N America,” there being practically no other Orthodox (Eagle River Antiochian being a notable exception). And oh, btw, it is the largest Church in Alaska, although its obituary has been repeatedly written after 1867.
One of my favorite stories of the attempt to kill it is what happened in the Lutheran sector (the US, after 1867, had martial law and divided Alaska up into 10 parts, each part going to a Protestant denomination, to deal with the natives): they hit on the idea of importing Sami (then called Lapps) men and their reindeer. The men would marry the Eskimos, make good Lutheran women out of them and raise Lutheran families which they would feed with the reindeers they raised. The native Alaskans, turned out to be Orthodox, who converted their husbands, so in that part of Alasak there are Orthodox Churches full of Aleut looking parishioners with Scandinavian last names (the reindeer ran off with a Caribou herd, and were never seen again).
To top it off, Alaska has become a place of pilgrimage to those in her Mother Church, Russia. I’ve seen that St. Herman has become quite popular.
No, Alaska isn’t all of the OCA, but it is an example in many ways of how to plant a Church and do missions, one that the Chief Secretary prefers to ignore.
[Translate]
Dear Sir,
Almost EVERY local church fits the model I have put forward WHILE THE OCA doesn’t even recognize its own status as local church.
It participates in SCOBA.
All this has been answered above. Perhaps you don’t like the answer, but you’ve been given it. Talking this in circles is not going to provide you with a different outcome.
The OCA has shown to be an abject failure. GET OVER IT!
Strive for a MATURE Orthodoxy on this continent and one that does not need rebellion and lack of oversight “to do what it sees fit” (and lapse into failure or apostasy as a result) as a model to emulate.
You mention Alaska and pilgrimage there of all things. Do you know what the OCA Alaskan diocese is called?! The Russian Orthodox diocese of Alaska. You have the audacity to say that that is indicative of an AMERICAN local church or American spirituality?!
Really, enough of this.
Jason Bently
[Translate]
“Almost EVERY local church fits the model I have put forward WHILE THE OCA doesn’t even recognize its own status as local church.”
So you have alleged, but not subsantiated. No, not a single local Church fits your “model,” with the single posible exception of Serbia, which you say was also “failed.” Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Cyprus were not a majority Orthodox society when they started, nor was Constantinople when it received its autocephaly. Russia, Greece, and Romania were a majority Orthodox (Greece and Romania being under kings who were in communion with the Vatican), but they took autocephaly over Constantintinople’s objections. Albania, Poland and Czech and Slovak Lands are still not majority Orthodox. Bulgaria obviously doesn’t fit your model at all. Georgia, the details elude us, but it is clear that Antioch gave her autocephaly because she could not give any supervision.
“It participates in SCOBA.”
yes, the solution the EP and others engaged in, say, Macedonia was so much better, slitting the throats (literally) of those of other jurisdictions at the turn of the last century. I prefer the OCA’s econonia.
At the time of SCOBA’s fonding it would be the EP and Moscow who didn’t recognize their own claims. The Metropolia, according to everyone, even itself, was not autocephalous.
“All this has been answered above. Perhaps you don’t like the answer, but you’ve been given it. Talking this in circles is not going to provide you with a different outcome.
The OCA has shown to be an abject failure. GET OVER IT!”
No matter how much you repeat your mantra, it does not make it so.
“Strive for a MATURE Orthodoxy on this continent and one that does not need rebellion and lack of oversight “to do what it sees fit” (and lapse into failure or apostasy as a result) as a model to emulate.”
Name a “MATURE Orthodoxy,” because I see a lot in the Mother Churches acting like children.
The congregationalist Greeks that even the Chief Secretary condemned were organized by the deposed Archbishop Meletios founded what became your favorite GOARCH, left it in the hands of the defrocked Bp. Alexander when he was elevated in an uncanonical election. Is that the rebelliion and lack of oversight you speak of?
“You mention Alaska and pilgrimage there of all things. Do you know what the OCA Alaskan diocese is called?! The Russian Orthodox diocese of Alaska.”
The Diocese’s official web site:
http://dioceseofalaska.org/
Says “Orthodox Diocese of Alaska.” So much for your name calling.
“You have the audacity to say that that is indicative of an AMERICAN local church or American spirituality?!”
The ancestors of the vast majority of the Faithful in the diocese lived in Alaska centuries before the Russian came. But I guess they don’t count.
[Translate]
Dear Sir,
Go to Alaska. If the name has been changed, it’s quite a recent thing. Most native Orthodox refer to themselves as RUSSIAN Orthodox. While the point you made was pilgrimage to the shrine of a RUSSIAN Orthodox Saint of a RUSSIAN Orthodox mission.
Now the model I put forward calls for:
1). A history as a successful missionary church on a given territory.
2). The development of an Orthodoxy which is local and has a character which is homogenous with the local population.
3). While at the same time having a congruent piety, orthopraxia spirituality with other local churches, yet being distinct.
4). Having a tradition of spirituality which is distinct to that local church and embodies its local character and a living tradition of theosis.
5). Natural evolution in obedience to and guidance by the mother church.
6). Recognition by the EP for full conciliar character and actual autocephaly, not overglorified autonomy.
7). Unity of all Orthodox bodies within its synod, not subordination to a para synod on its territory.
Almost every autocphalous church has either expressed this in its character as local church or expresses it today. It is requisite for autocephaly and expresses mature Orthodoxy.
I said the ORIGINAL Serbian autocephaly failed. Stop being disingenuous.
Now as stated above:
1). The OCA has lost 80% of its membership since autocephaly, has ethnic/assimilate memberships today lower than it did in 1914, when it did not even have autonomy, and has a membership 20% less than the current AOA.
2). It has been riddled with financial and other scandals during the era of its “autocephaly” which have inhibited its mission, compromised its institutions and threatened to close many of them.
3). It has not in any way shape of form cultivated a native Orthodox character and does not in any way exhibit even the beginnings of a native Orthodox spirituality.
4). It acquiesces to a para-synod on its canonical territory of diasporan churches which UNCANONICALLY usurps its prerogatives as a local church.
5). It is not recognizes by the EP, will never be, and has no conciliar authority in the Church as such.
And we could go on and on. The case is made for the ABJECT FAILURE of this body and closed. WHEN IS FAILURE NOT FAILURE?! You are lambasting the AOA for not opening its books to your satisfaction. Enough. If this were a business, it would already be in receivership (It should be).
Again, autocephaly is NOT a given. It takes time and maturity in the Church. You just don’t declare it and you DEFINITELY do not predicate it on rebellion and some RENOVATIONIST drive to “do as you please” without oversight. That, as the OCA has shown, ends up as failure and taken to its logical conclusion eventual schism and apostasy.
I put forward a model for an eventual autocephaly, which takes time, but gets it done and creates a native Orthodox church, which you find no need for. You just declare ethnic/assimilate Orthodox jurisdictions “local” even though they aren’t even sure which translation to use and rebel against your bishops and lead things as you please. That is not Orthodoxy, but a quite personal cafeteria religion, leading right out of the Church.
Jason Bently
[Translate]
“Go to Alaska.”
I am, having just gone on pilgrimage to Fort Ross last year, planning just that. Lord willing.
“If the name has been changed, it’s quite a recent thing. Most native Orthodox refer to themselves as RUSSIAN Orthodox. While the point you made was pilgrimage to the shrine of a RUSSIAN Orthodox Saint of a RUSSIAN Orthodox mission.”
Canonized by the Orthodox Church in AMERICA.
“Now the model I put forward calls for:
1). A history as a successful missionary church on a given territory.”
Constantinople had no such history when it received autocephaly. It was mostly know for being a hotbed of heresy at the time, which outsiders had to come in and clean up.
(I use Constantinople as an example).
The OCA had, by the time of autocephaly, built up the Church in Alaska (the majority of the conversion happened after the Russian sale. The Tlingit, for instance, had not converted pratically at all until after the sale), gave birth to the Albanian Church (Boston, not Tirana, is the Mother Church), led/promoted the back to Orthodoxy movement which culminated in the Church of the Czech lands and Slovakia, prevented the communist takeover of the Orthodox Church of Japan which came under the OCA until autocephaly, shepherded the Romanian “diaspora” into the Romanian Orthodox Episcopacy, (shortly after autocephaly) received Mexican National Catholic Church into Orthodoxy, had ordained the first Orthodox bishops in the New World and a NON-titular hiearachy, etc.
“2). The development of an Orthodoxy which is local and has a character which is homogenous with the local population.”
At the time of Constantinople’s autocephaly, it had driven St. Gregory (an outsider from Cappodocia) from its throne for Maxim the Cynic (an outsider from Alexandria) whom the Second Ecumenical Council deposed and replaced with St. Nectarios (and outsider from Cilicia under Antioch), who was succeeded by St. John Chrysostom (another outsider from Antioch), whom Constantinople exiled and killed, who was succeeded by the brother of St. Nectarios (and hence an outsider but a Constantinopolitan by nepotism)…it would be quite some time before Constantinople produced its own primate.
At the time of autocephaly, the primate was Met. Ireney, whom Met. Leonty (who had gone as a missionary to America and put in charge of the seminary here by St. Tikhon and at the time of Ireney’s consecration, had been in America nearly half a century) had consecrated as primate of the Japanese Church, and who had succeeded Met. Leonty (who had started as a bishop in Chicago, succeeded there by the Metropolitan of All Latvia). He was succeeded by Theodosios, but that the OCA was able to do what Constantinople couldn’t for decades if not centuries isn’t negated by his tenure (remember: in a comparable time period Constantinople was exiling and killing her primates).
“3). While at the same time having a congruent piety, orthopraxia spirituality with other local churches, yet being distinct.”
Constantinople had none of the above at the time of its autocephaly.
The OCA, amongst other things, implemented St. Tikhon vision of a more conciliar than monarchal episcopacy. It is still the other Church (possible exception Albania) pursuing that.
Your point is too vague to go further.
“4). Having a tradition of spirituality which is distinct to that local church and embodies its local character and a living tradition of theosis.”
Constantinople, again, had none of that.
I would submit that the voluntary nature of the Alaskan mission has carried throught to the reception of the uniates to the establishment of the OCA, which has already produced saints in this character.
Again, your point is too vague to go further.
“5). Natural evolution in obedience to and guidance by the mother church.”
Constantinople definitely had none of this. She was quite disobedient to her Mother Church of Rome: she got autocephaly to be freed of her immediate bishop at Heraclea.
The OCA went to the PoM, as the EP said. Autocephaly was the result.
As your point is so flatly contradicted by the histories of the local Churches, I won’t belabor it.
“6). Recognition by the EP for full conciliar character and actual autocephaly, not overglorified autonomy.”
Rome didn’t recognize Constantinople for nearly a millenium. Did that make the EP just an overglorified minister of religion?
Again, as this is so flatly contradicted by the history of most Churches (even the EP’s site admits this, Serbia being only a partial exception), I won’t belabor it. We don’t believe in Vatican I or II. Or Phanar I or II.
“7). Unity of all Orthodox bodies within its synod, not subordination to a para synod on its territory.”
Constantinople, when made autocephalous, didn’t have any territory, just its freedom from the see of Heraclea. It wouldn’t get any set down for 70 years (so the OCA still has some time).
Uncanonical actions of other Churches do not affect the canonical actions of an autocephalous Church. If it did, Constantinople shouldn’t be autocephalous.
“Almost every autocphalous church has either expressed this in its character as local church or expresses it today. It is requisite for autocephaly and expresses mature Orthodoxy.”
Every time a hear the vague appeal to “mature Orthodoxy,” it signals not only an attempt to latch onto the apron strings for dear life, but trying to reattatch the umbilical cord. A mother nursing her infant is a heartwarming scene. Past a certain age, it becomes unseemy.
“I said the ORIGINAL Serbian autocephaly failed. Stop being disingenuous.”
And you were wrong about that too.
This is long enough, and I’ll have to answer the rest of your “points” later.
[Translate]
Dear Sir,
Moreover, the most preposterous thing I hear from advocates of “autocephaly” like yourself is that it “exists” or needs to exist when there is no such thing as an American Orthodoxy and an American Orthodox identity.
How preposterous.
Jason Bently
[Translate]
Dear Jason,
Again, see above. The EP is the victim of history AFTER being the major church of the empire.
I see, so using your logic, if I set up a tent in Old Rome, I am entitled to declare autocephalous status instantly, although I have no parishioners, simply because I “used to be something.” Presumably the same rationale would allow people in Ephesus and Carthage (Orthodox population – zero) to do the same?
Only the OCA’s Mother Church (and some satellites/friends) recognizes it while the EP does not, which means it does not function conciliarly like an autocephalous church, but, rather, an automous synod, which it is in effect, and a FAILED one.
By my count, the vast majority of the Orthodox on this planet recognize the OCA, minus a few hundred people in Istanbul and Jerusalem. The better question might be, “so who cares?” As I said, I’m amazed they answer the telephone when the Phanar calls, either in Moscow OR in Syosset.
Another thing, no one said the AOA books had been audited, but that an audit was agreed to. What was said is that the financial statements showed solvency consistently and that the AOA in practice showed a healthy stewardship which supported succesful missiology on N American soil
Point of fact, the AOCA has NOT agreed to an audit, to the continuing consternation of many of it’s members. I don’t know where you are getting your information. And common sense would dictate not declaring the state health of its stewardship prior to that audit.
My outline for what constitutes a local church is the REALITY in the Orthodox world. The history of Orthodoxy, country by country validates the model.
Your interminable rantings aside, the problem is really this: You would “like” there to be some process for autocephaly. You might be able to describe what that process SHOULD be; some might even agree with you.
But the bottom line is that autocephaly has NEVER been achieved in that way. A national church simply declares itself autocephalous. PERIOD. That’s what happened in the Balkans; that’s what happened in Russia. That’s what happened in the Czech Church – all 89 parishes.
Don’t like it? Go argue with history – because that’s what the history is. Sometimes it’s 60 years after the formation of the Church (Bulgaria is one example), sometimes it’s 450 years after being evangelized (Russia). You are free to disagree with the process; you are free to suggest an alternative process; but those are simply YOUR opinions. There is no canon law supporting your claims – and history specifically argues to the contrary. Finally, but most importantly, there is no threshhold of any sort that a church must meet before declaring itself independent.That may not suit your agenda, or your likings…but it’s the fact.
Borders change, and that generally causes changes in ecclesial boundaries. Many times this causes the formation of a new national church. The Mother Churches generally object, but eventually get over it. It’s not a lot more complicated than that…your comments, or those of your Phanariot friends notwithstanding.
Finally, to call a church, or more precisely their autocephaly, failed? To be honest, I don’t think I’d want to be the one doing that. God will judge the success or failure of the OCA, and it’s autocephaly.
Placing yourself in that position is something we are specifically warned against.
Have a great evening.
Best Regards,
Dean
[Translate]
Dear Sir,
All your observations have been addressed above and answered. So I’m not going to argue in circles any further with you. Simply read what is written above
When is failure not failure?! The OCA is an abject. 80% of parishoner LOST since “autocephaly”?! Bankruptcy, corruption, other sordid perfidy. Insititutions and parishes imploding. One could go on, but, frankly, it hurts. Once you all finally admit the failure YOU are responsible for, reevaluate your FAILED missiology and actually appreciate the necessity of an AMERICAN LOCAL CHURCH featuing an AMERICAN ORTHODOXY and the time such a process takes to transpire to create a local church and FINALLY accede to a missiology which is consonant with the Church’s catholicity, and not something contrived or ridden with fads, which expresses a local orthopraxis congruent with the rest of the Church, which fosters and promotes a local Orthodox sanctity and piety, then we’ll talk.
Right now, the only thing on the table is politics, disobedience, rebellion and an immaturity so unripe it has collapsed in on itself.
Enough.
I’ve put together of a missiology which works and puts together a local church which eventually matures to autocephaly.
Read what I have written above.
Jason Bently
The AOA MOST CERTAINLY has agreed to an audit. Avail yourself of that information on their website, and, really, stop maligning those people who have been successful at spreading Orthodoxy in N America.
[Translate]
Jason, among your many misstatements of fact, I cannot let one go: and that is that the AOCNA is “financially solvent” “like the GOA.” This is supposition on anybody’s part.
fact: the call for an independent audit was shouted down last July.
fact: a seeming miracle has occurred at St George’s church in Troy, Mi, where a dead treasurer has been issuing checks over the past two years.
Sarcasm aside, unless and until an independent audit is conducted, then nobody can safely gainsay what the real financial picture of the AOCNA is. Period. In the interests of the Church as a whole, I would suggest that Englewood come clean an authorize such an audit. Unlike the Lord, the IRS is not long-suffering.
[Translate]
Dear Sir,
AGAIN, the AOA has stated that an audit will be taking place.
What is this infatuation with trying to tear down success and prop up the failure of something like the OCA?!
Jason Bently
[Translate]
Jason,
I have read and re-read your comments. Near as I can tell you object that His Beatitude has not dealt with the former members of the Central Church administration as you think he ought to have. Fine. That you interpret this as some how being “business as usually” in the OCA is just that, your interpretation and not a fact.
With Chrys, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, that when you say things about His Beatitude such as “he’s not what you think” that you merely have expressed yourself poorly. But, for the sake on my conscience if for no other reason, withdraw the statement. If we have misunderstood you, if I have misunderstood, please forgive–but clarify tell us directly that you simply disagree with decisions that have been made and that you are not drawing inferences about the man’s character.
Dean Calvert is correct: We need to support Metropolitan JONAH and all our bishops. In the past we have not–sometimes we haven’t for understandable and even praiseworthy reasons. But we have also not supported them for reasons that are petty and frankly sinful.
If His Beatitude is in error, I will tell him so myself. But so far all I am aware of is that he has made decisions with which some have disagreed.
In Christ,
+FrG
[Translate]
Dear Father,
My only reaction to this is to stop beating a dead horse. I’m not going to say any more regarding Metropolitan Jonah, for I don’t believe it to be a worthy use of time.
The OCA is an abject failure and that has been illustrated.
The rest of my contribution I refer all to the above statements to see where I advocate AOA-OCA merger and under what auspices.
Jason Bently
[Translate]
Dear Father (OCA loyalists),
My position is that a wrong turn began to be taken when Fr. Florovsky was forced out, that it was solidified after Metropolitan Leonty’s death and exacerbated into unrecoverable ruin with the enthronement of Metropolitan Theodosius and his subsequent rule. I hoped for better under Metropolitan Herman but was utterly disappointed. My OCA died with Archbishop Kiprian of South Canaan.
Since I grew up in the OCA, I speak from personal experience.
This is my backdrop for stepping back and looking at the past. I don’t hate the OCA, I’m so sorry for what happened to it.
Jason Bently
[Translate]
As for Greeks, many there are not just upset with their religious leaders but also the political ones. I came across a nationlistic group on the right in Greece which is upset with immirgation to Greece. Greece is not a large country and many Albanians have immirganted to Greece illegality. This not only makes it hard culturally since the Albanians are more likely to be Moslems but also the Albanians will work for less money making it harder for Greeks to be employed.
[Translate]
Dear Lady,
I can never understand why in the Balkans, instead of getting angry and losing control, the Orthodox peoples simply do not try to convert or at least acculturate such Islamic peoples as the Albanians.
Jason Bently
[Translate]
Comment to Jason Bently 55.1
Archbishop Anastasios of Albania has in fact presided over the baptism
and conversions of thousands of former Muslims and atheists in Albania.
Theodoros
[Translate]
The Monks of Decani
“There is another part of the Church in Kosovo, however, which has already started preparing for the spread of the gospel to the rest of the region. These people are less concerned that Kosovo should become Serbian than that Kosovo as a whole should become Christian.
It seemed to me that the monks of Decani, some of whom have learned to speak Albanian, form something of a vanguard in this forward-looking movement. Although they insisted on the legitimacy of Serbia’s political claims in the region and showed not the slightest enthusiasm for Kosovo independence, the Decani monks manifested a greater interest in the salvation of souls—including Albanian souls.
Indeed, even during the war, the monastery of Decani was a beacon of hope and renewal. When hostile Albanians launched a mortar attack against the monastery, and bombs from American planes (evidently misdirected on purpose!) fell on the monastery’s apple orchard, the monks of Decani went on with their traditional routine: chanting the Psalms and hymnody in church, painting icons, studying the Bible, tilling fields, gathering honey, making cheese and butter, and so on.
And especially these monks loved their neighbors, regardless of race or religion. When the army sent from Yugoslavia was killing and pillaging all through the region, the monks of Decani received the fleeing Muslims and other Albanians into their cloister to protect them. These monks—never more than thirty in number, I think—fed the hungry and housed the homeless. When cursed, they blessed. Slapped on one cheek, they turned the other. That is to say, they did what Christians are supposed to do in the hour of the gospel’s testing. They placed the gospel first. If the spirit of the Decani monastery prevails in the Orthodox Church in Kosovo, I believe nothing is to be feared about the region’s future.”
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=22-07-021-f
[Translate]
Glory to God!
Jason Bently
[Translate]
That was a very good artcle entitled Kosovo Lost And Found. It fact, Orthodox should care about other christians and non-christians. I came across Sergio, on the internet who was a ex-Moslem who didn’t like the Orthodox in his country of Algeria because they had drinking problems and didn’t like Moslems, so he became a protestant evangelical since they showed an interest in him. Orthodox behavior among the non-orthodox is important.
[Translate]
Sorry, the message got duplicated, a problem on my computer.
[Translate]
I weep.
[Translate]
To George M:
Your remark about Romania being a “cobbled-together country with significant Slav and Magyar populations” would not be received kindly by anyone born in Romania. At first glance, it sounds very much like the denial of the authenticity of the Romanian ethnicity, which is a line often pursued by Romania’s enemies. I’m sure you did not mean it that way.
While it is true that the people living within the modern nation-state of Romania include non-assimilated ethnicities such as Hungarians/Magyars and Romi/Gypsies, and that Romania as a state came into being only during the 19th century, Romanians are a proud and ancient people whose Latin roots are well attested by, among other things, their language: Latin structure, and Latin vocabulary, with only 35% of the word stock being of Slavic (and certainly later) derivation.
It is also true that there are people of Romanian ethnicity living outside the border of the modern state of Romania, including large groups south of the Danube which still maintain a Romanian dialect, and may be called Aromanians, Macedo-Romanians, Vlachs, etc.
In general, all Romanians have been Orthodox as long as there is a historical record, with the notable exception of the Union with Rome (Byzantine Catholicism), which was forced on the Romanians in Transylvania under the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Hungarians have never been Orthodox and are not today. They chose Catholicism in the 11th century, if I recall correctly, but were significantly affected by the Reformation. Thus the two predominant Hungarian churches: Reformed and Catholic. Hungarians in Romania are not Orthodox, except in the case of mixed marriage, and an isolated conversion here and there.
There are no unassimilated Slavs in Romania, to my knowledge. The Roma/Gypsies are a “Pan-European” people of Indian origin. In Romania I believe there are 5 major tribes or families of Gypsies, some of which identify with the Hungarians, and some with the Romanians. They have their own language, as well as speaking Hungarian or Romanian, as the case may be. They may hold to a form of Orthodoxy, but normally are more influenced by folk traditions.
The Orthodox Church in Romania is largely a nationalist church, which holds on fondly to the vision of “Byzantium after Byzantium”. It is for Romanians. If a Hungarian in Romania converts to Orthodoxy, he or she is forsaking his or her Hungarian identity, at least to a certain extent, and embracing a Romanian one.
In fact, I understand that the Old World still believes that one’s religion is determined by one’s ethnicity, that religion is not an individual matter, but a heritage that ties together families, neighborhoods, regions, nations–all that is inferred by the idea of “us”, as opposed to “them”.
By the way, for a person born in a place like Romania, where Orthodoxy and ethnicity are organically intertwined, it would be hard to view Orthodoxy in America as anything other than Diaspora. Certainly not indigenous in the Old World sense. Thus the Old World Churches see America as a mission field, not an indigenous Orthodox land. But of course their mission here is only to their own.
[Translate]
Fr, I did not mean any disrespect to the Romanian people. My statement that Romania was “cobbled together” was just a statement of fact, in much the same way that the Russian polity was cobbled together from several different grand duchies and principalities. (The focal point of unity for almost 500 years was the metropolitan of Kiev.) In addition, there are numerous Vlakhs in Greece who claim Romanian origins.
My criticism of “Jason Bentley” is primarily that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. His seeming insistence that the OCA or its all-American successor cannot be Orthodox because America is not a homogeneous nation is too ludicrous for words.
As you can tell by my name, you can see that I am of Greek descent (full blood if that matters). Clearly, because I use my name and refuse to hide behind internet monikers would be prima facie evidence that I am proud of my heritage. This caveat aside, I think we can all agree that the last half-millennium of Orthodoxy (with the possible exception of Russia), has been one of decrepitude and nationalism above and beyond the “one needful thing,” which our Lord lamented to a certain church in Asia Minor in the Book of Revelation.
This is understandable. The Orthodox Church in its various nationalistic manifestations has allowed the Serb, Bulgar, Romanian, and Greek people (among others) to maintain their sense of nationhood. That is not a bad thing, and in fact, quite a good thing all things being equal. Clearly though in America, Orthodoxy must cultivated with a special emphasis on our nationality and not a particular racial component (whether Anglo-Celtic, Hispanic, Amerindian, or African-American).
Again, I meant no offense to the Romanian people.
[Translate]
On behalf of my two sons (their mother is from Bucharest), I didn’t take George M.’s comments that way.
You are right in that Romanians from Romania do have trouble seeing this country as anything but Diaspora. That is the reason why the Romanian merger isn’t going to happen. On the exarch’s side, the Romanian Episcopate is the same as the Orthodox Church of Moldova: Romanians under the Russians (so expressed) instead of Bucharest.
But it is no impossible for a different vision: as one put it, Dormition Monastery is the “bleeding edge of Orthodox Unity in America.” In fact, that is the insistence that the monastery be in this country that led to its founding.
The Romanians are well aware of differences among themselves in Romania. They are not as homogenous as some would put it (neither, for that matter are the Greeks), but that doesn’t override their sense of national solidarity. Or the unity of their Church. Neither does diversity stand in the way of an American Church.
[Translate]
George,
I am quite satisfied that you meant no offense. The nation-state of Romania was indeed a rather late political union of political-cultural regions that had people of Romanian origin as their majority. It is just the fact that neighboring peoples, especially the Hungarians, deny that the Romanians are anything but a mongrel ethnicity (there thus being no justification for a Romanian state). We even heard that point of view not too long ago from a mayor of Moscow. To Romanians that is not just an insult, but also a threat to their security.
Cultural divides have plagued the Church since Acts 6, and while the Church is indeed universal and must find a way to live out its universality, missiology teaches us that a variety of modalities may be more effective in spreading the Gospel than simply insisting that every parish/community must be all things to all people. That is why I find the current Chambesy IV proposal encouraging.
I find inspiration in the situation I glean from the life of St. Paisius Velichkovsky, at a time prior to Orthodox nationalism, when there was a high level of cultural sophistication, and a fascinating intermingling of nationalities and languages. St. Paisius came from what I understand to be the Ukraine, was at home with the Slavonic, Greek, and “Moldovlachian” (Romanian) Orthodox cultures, and did some of his greatest work in Moldova, significantly influenced by a little known Romanian Saint, Basil of Poiana Marului, who taught him the ways of hesychasm.
Myself, I am a mongrel, a Western puppy eating from the crumbs that fell under the table of the Church which flowered in the East. I too want an indigenous Orthodoxy in America. But I think there are still some significant milestones to pass before we have a rooted, stable, mature, and organic American Orthodoxy. Perhaps in the providence of God, America, by its nature as a multi-cultural society, will be the place where Orthodoxy can be reborn to a new vitality, authenticity, and missionary character. It seems to me that all aspects of the current agitation about Orthodoxy in America are good signs that something is happening. Major changes rarely come peacefully, do they?
[Translate]
Hi Fr. David,
Your comments reminded me of these, from Runciman’s book The Great Church in Captivity:
“George Scholarius (Gennadius) had, perhaps unconsciously, foreseen the danger when he answered a question about his nationality by saying that he would not call himself a Hellene though he was a Hellene by race, nor a Byzantine though he had been born at Byzantium, but, rather, a Christian, that is, an Orthodox. For, if the Orthodox Church was to retain its spiritual force, it must remain oecumenical. It must not become purely a Greek Church.
One of the most disorienting things one is faced with in reading the original Byzantine histories is exactly what you point out – i.e. the complete lack of concern for ethnic identification. It is so completely opposed to the national outlook that we have today…that one is truly disoriented by it.
I remember reading an 800 page tome, “The Annals of Niketas Choniates”, translated by Harry Magoulias. In that book (but in most others as well) the word “Greek” is almost never used, and Orthodoxy is never associated with any nationality.
Now if you think about this – it’s truly stunning. Not only did the Byzantines not refer to others as “Russian” Orthodox, or “Greek” Orthodox…they did not refer to THEMSELVES as anything but “Orthodox”…not Romans, not Greeks, certainly not Byzantines. They were simply members of the Orthodox Oecumene…a phrase I always thought was beautiful.
I came to the conclusion that our modern point of view has been so influenced by the modern day “hyphenated” American practice, i.e. “Italian-Americans” “Greek-American” German-American”, that it is really difficult for modern Americans (with all their talk about diversity!) to even imagine a situation with ethnicity does not matter.
This is one of the (many) reasons why I refer to the “Church of the first 15 centuries” as something to be emulated. It’s not a romantic notion, or ultra conservatism etc.
This increased emphasis on nationalism, while understandable, is nothing more than what I’ve called “the bath-tub ring” of the Ottomans. Something that was completely foreign to the Church for 15 centuries, and was foisted upon us by Muslims, who, we must remember, had the expressed intent of destroying the Church.
In any case, it’s always amazed me that in many ways, the Church of the first 15 centuries was more advanced than we are.
Just a thought, provoked by your comments.
Best Regards,
Dean
[Translate]
The rise of nationalism is a global phenomenon that well pre-dates (and was a significant factor in) World War I, and supplanted the tribalism that preceded it. While it expresses our need for social order (you have to have boundaries somewhere), we invariably take it up – as we do pretty much everything – in a fallen manner – turning it into an occasion for enmity. Ethnic differences can enrich or divide – but humanity has a lousy record when it comes to making factions of every conceivable kind. As has been referred to many times on these pages, St. Paul dealt with these issues from almost the beginning of the Church. All of which makes it all the more imperative that we focus on the “one thing needful.” The first order of business is the conversion of the heart to that “one thing.” The second is the prudent but relentless application of asceticism to apply and extend that conversion to every nook and cranny of our existence until we are living the the faith with deep integrity, consistency and love – until we are saints. My bet is this is how unity will happen “on top”: when it bubbles up – with power – from the bottom.
[Translate]
Quick clarification: my point in referring to WWI – which was well after the Ottoman empire and occurred, in fact, at its very end – was only an awkward expression of the global nature of the phenomenon. I should have chosen a much more timely (by a few or more centuries) example. One could see similar forces at work in Europe and China around the same era – the inevitable development in the scale and integration of social organization. (Its delayed development in Europe was, as I understand it, the consequence of the utter social disintegration that followed the collapse of Rome.)
Again, my apologies for a lousy illustration, which takes a bit away from my key point – namely, the divisive nature of sinful existence and the ONLY solution to it: life in Christ.
[Translate]
And yet, brothers, we should be careful about treating Orthodox nationalism as though it were nothing but some kind of disease. Some of the most significant Orthodox theologians of the 20th Century (Dumitru Staniloae, Justin Popovich, and St. Nikolai Velirimovich) all wrote very convincingly about their Orthodox nations having a special character, a unique contribution to the whole, and a divine vocation to fulfill.
[Translate]
Fr. David, you are exactly right. Just as each individual has unique gifts and a unique calling, so to each era, nation, culture, locale, etc. At the risk of horrible oversimplification, one can see it in the Russian asceticism, Greek community, etc. The Romanian theologians and witness generated in the midst of one of the most deliberate persecutions in history has been a profound blessing. (The very different writings of Fr. Roman Braga, Elder Cleopa and Fr. Dumitru Staniloae have each blessed and challenged me.) I look forward to the unique contribution(s) that American Orthodoxy will make. My suspicion is that it will have “practical” character, perhaps fostering organizational accountability and efficiency. (While some may struggle to stifle laughter at such a comment, it is precisely our American demand for organizational integrity is what has exposed – and what may ultimately correct – the practices that I suspect are more commonplace throughout history than we would like to think.) The issue is one of priority and focus. So long as our focus and priority is the kingdom of God, then we will eventually discover the character of God’s unique gift that is American Orthodoxy.
[Translate]
OK, I hope this gets posted in the right place, as a reply to Chrys.
I keep intending to stop posting, as I get tired of my own pontificating, but I did intend to say, Chrys, much more in the posting about the unique contributions of various Orthodox peoples.
In fact, you took the words out of my mouth, so to speak. Romanian theologians like to say that the American gift is pragmatism, and by that they mean the ability to get things done.
Perhaps also, as I said somewhere above, the multi-cultural character of our society can be a matrix for Orthodoxy to rediscover its universality and missionary spirit.
Romanians have a deep respect for all the other Orthodox peoples, and also admire the zeal of American convert Orthodoxy. But they have settled into the idea that every people has its own religion, and that’s the way it’s supposed to be; thus there is no impulse toward what they call “external mission”.
But, you see, here I go on and on, riding my hobby horse, and pretending I know what I’m talking about.
Lord have mercy!
[Translate]
By the way, George, my full birth name is David Wayne Hudson. I’m of Appalachian Scots-Irish descent and my mother, unfortunately, had John Wayne in mind when she gave me my middle name in the 1950s. In the 1990s I was converted to Orthodoxy in Romania, where I was also ordained to the priesthood. I now serve a parish of the Romanian Episcopate of the OCA, located in northwest Indiana. In the interest of transparency and accountability. You’re right; if we’re going to pontificate, we should show our faces. That would probably improve the integrity of the Orthodox blogging enterprise. And I don’t mean that as a potshot at anyone in particular.
[Translate]
Jason Bently, the AOI blog is not the place for personal crusades. You have made your point. Everyone understands it. No more please.
[Translate]
Isa,
you are of course right. The Balkans are a place of intense intermingling of different nations. One of the reasons I have come to reject the pettit nationalisms of modern ethnic Orthodoxy is that I can look around the GOA and see the diverse descent of Greek-Americans who claim 100% Greek ancestry. In my case, my mother’s maiden name has has clear Slavonic roots even though that part of the family was from Asia Minor. My paternal great-great-grandfather was from Sicily and his name is most definately Italian. My wife’s paternal ancestry is from Peloponnesus but her maiden name is Hispanic. (Actually it was traced to Medieval France but it got hispanized early on.)
Fr David, all: Anyway my point is that growing up it appeared that the GOA’s mission was to foster a cult of homogeneia. I imagine that’s what was going on in the Serb/Bulgar/Romanian/Etc. jurisdictions as well. All to the detriment of the Gospel.
That’s why sometimes I get dismissive of this type of ethno-Orthdoxy and simply call it “Bulbanian” or “Slobovian” Orthodoxy.
p.s. I’m very gratified to hear that the proposed merger of the two Romanian exarchates is dead in the water. When I first heard it I thought it was more of the same.
[Translate]
Hmm. Perhaps it is “dead in the water”, but I’m not sure it was necessarily “more of the same”. For some, it certainly was. For others, I think, it was meaningful on a different level: (1) healing an ugly, sinful rift; and (2) not carrying that baggage into the new administrative paradigm for Orthodoxy in America, which will surely continue to respect and make room for what some of you called in previous posts “the Romanian usage”. Since, even in Metropolitan Jonah’s vision, the future of Orthodox unity in America will probably be organized as something other than the OCA, I imagine that many Romanians may have considered a Patriarchate-based unity a viable step towards the new Chambesy IV paradigm. Even the Romanian Episcopate of the OCA has utterly no intention of being assimilated into some kind of Pan-American-melting-pot-Orthodoxy. Myself, I’m sorry to see the Romanians again fail to reconcile their differences. While I don’t believe the Old World Patriarchates should be carrying on a mission directly on foreign soil, that IS the predominant paradigm at the present. I suppose we’ll all get to unity at the same time, traveling our various roads. As Chrys points out, and as in fact Metropolitan Jonah warns us, without inner unity, administrative unity may be a nightmare.
[Translate]
I agree that the ethnic nature of many orthodox churches causes many Americans, in particular Protestants to not persuade the orthodox church. Also, hearing about the orthodox church in Russia making it difficult for protestants to practice their religion will turn off a lot of potential protesants. Granted, the american churches don’t have control over this but some in the hierarchy in the US could point this out more to their breathen overseas.
[Translate]
protestants who are interested in converting. I forget to put this in my last sentance.
[Translate]
Fr David, bless,
what worries me about this “in time we’ll all have unity schtick” that’s being peddled by many (mostly pollyannas and sycophants for the EP), is that I can just as easily see further division and eventual schism. I don’t mean to tell tales out of school, but I was told by a friend who I trust very much that a well-respected bishop once said in a private convesation with him and a few others two negative things about the present and future of American Orthodoxy. First, he said that he always feared, nay dreaded, “the Question.” What is The “Question”? The one that is invariably asked by honest inquirers is “Wow! I love Orthodoxy! I feel like I’ve found the pearl of great price! Now…which jurisdiction should I join?” Variations of this question include: “what’s the difference between Greek Orthodoxy and Russian Orthodoxy?” and “What’s this about the Serbs? Why are they divided?” “How come there are two Bulgarian jurisdictions in America?” “If your Church is the Church and it is guided by the Holy Spirit then why all this division? Is the Holy Spirit the author of division?”
(I know exactly what this bishop meant! I’ve been asked this question a hundred times if I’ve been asked it once. Speaking for myself, this hurts my soul, as I can’t give a good answer. Maybe you can help me?)
Anyway, this bishop spoke barely above a whisper and he said the second thing, that as to the future, “It’s very possible that in fifteen years we’ll be so divided that we won’t even share the Chalice.” My friend told me that you could have heard a pin drop. I still see that happening, especially if the forthcoming Episcopal Assembly proves to be nothing more than a smokescreen to frustrate true unity, something that I think we can all agree that SCOBA turned out to be. (Actually, that’s unfair, SCOBA didn’t have the moxie to be obstructionist.) Since there is no real deadline, I can easily see that if nothing concrete happens and there is no honest compromise between all the jurisdictions, then many bishops will leave, some in a dramatic fashion. Others will just stop coming, period.
In addition, it the current ecclesial laxity of the more worldly jurisdictions is not addressed, then I can easily see the more traditionalist bishops forming their own counter-synod. I’ve been told by people I respet that should this come about (i.e. lack of good faith, fecklessness, and no real attempt to enforce canonical norms) then Moscow will provide theological cover for any bishop who wants to leave from such an assembly. I know that Moscow forced the EP to come up with the protocol in the first place but we all know that individual jurisdictions can frustrate the entire process if they want to.
[Translate]
It has been my working theory that Moscow, looking at the facts on the ground and seeing the likely outcomes, signed on Chambesy to give the EP enough rope to hang himself.
[Translate]
Isa, that’s interesting that you would say that. I’ve picked this thread up from personal conversations. Can’t really put my finger on it but it just seems to be “in the air” if you know what I mean.
[Translate]
Yes, George, you are right. And this also affirms my theory that we will all reach unity at the same time, if we are speaking about a more or less total American Orthodox unity. Among the many obstructions is that many (or perhaps most) who speak out for unity would not accept unity except on their own terms. Unfortunately the State has traditionally played a major role in enforcing unity in the Church, and since that will never happen here, we have a very good chance of seeing Orthodoxy finally sink to the American level of just another group of related denominations, of Eastern extraction. Any partial unity (such as the present OCA paradigm) just reinforces that impression: Orthodoxy offers brand choices, just like all the rest of the faiths on the marketplace (I wish it were only ethnic culture that divided us). And thus all faith remains relative and individual.
It seems to me that the Old World Orthodox Churches, while having external (administrative, if you will) unity, contain at the same time, not just diversity but downright disunity (internal).
I guess if we were truly Orthodox we would already have unity.
When I was struggling through the process of conversion, my biggest question was whether or not there WERE any true Orthodox Christians (to the extent I was able to understand and discern what that meant). Thankfully, I did find enough pious Orthodox Christians in Romania to convince me that there really was such a thing as Orthodoxy, and nothing else compared to it.
To say that the Orthodox Church has been a disappointment would be an understatement. But in the mercies of God, we still can find salvation here. It’s a narrow path we must walk.
Lord, have mercy.
[Translate]
There is so much about your comments that resonates with both my experience and views. I am particularly convinced (as numerous comments on this blog would indicate) about the importance of personal sanctity. No matter how compelling our arguments nor how effective our programs, nothing reaches and changes the heart like the witness of living saints. It is the ongoing transformation of the fallen person and the “incarnation” of God’s Spirit that makes a hash of all of our pet theories and personal excuses – and that evokes in our own hearts a deep desire for His kingdom. One can not read about Elder Paisios, for instance, nor meet those many “hidden” saints among us, without quickly discovering how low and self-serving our notion of life is. In these saints we realize that the transfigured life to which we are all called is indeed SO much more than we had thought or imagined.
As you say, the Church, en masse, has been a heartbreaking disappointment, yet the continuing flowering of God’s saints in her gardens convinces me – as you said – that there is nothing else compared to it.
Thank you for your post.
[Translate]
I just came across this again. It’s rather rich. It’s from Met. Stephanos the Cypriot Greek from Congo that HAH Bartholomew put in charge of Estonia. To appreciate it, you have to know that HAH demanded that Pat. Alexei recall his “supposed canonical bishop” HB Met. Cornelius, a call HAH repeated when he came to Estonia to canonize a saint Pat. Alexei and HB Met. Cornelius had already glorifed. He offered the sop of Russian bishop for the Russian speakers in Estonia. The call is rich because both Pat. Alexei and Cornelius were Estonian speaking and bred, being born, baptized, ordained and consecrated in Estonia (Cornelius also having been sentenced to 10 years by the Soviets for possession of religious literature and speaking to people about religion), a fact the EP tries to constue to his advantage (“You, personally, were born in Estonia under the omophorion of the Church of Constantinople and as her child You were baptized and spent your childhood there”)
http://www.orthodoxa.org/GB/estonia/documentsEOC/intime.htm
http://www.orthodoxa.org/GB/estonia/documentsEOC/reponseAlexis.htm
“This website includes the documents and the witnesses about the Orthodox Church of Estonia for the purpose of recording the whole topic to the memory of History. Still nowadays, there are people living in Russia and in Estonia who have closely or remotely been the actors or victims of a tragic destiny. We keep all the thoughts of quarrel and vain suspicions far from us. If we make place to certain memories, it is only because we hope to create such new conditions that the past would never be repeated and the future would bring about a reconciliation with all the Orthodox population in this country. It seems to me that it is high time for us to force ourselves just there where we are to stop all “colonialist-like attitudes that have nothing to do with the ecclesiology and canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church“”
Who HB Met. Stephanos is quoting is “Archbishop Nathanael of Roumanian archdiocese of Orthodox Church in America“
[Translate]
Isa, see why I keep repeating this phrase: “…stunnning bad faith…”?
[Translate]