Comments on: All-Orthodox ‘Pre-Conciliar Consultation’ Set for Chambesy in June

By: George Michalopulos

George Michalopulos — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:30:41 +0000

William, please forgive me for calling you “Williams”. It made me sound like a “toff.”

By: George Michalopulos

George Michalopulos — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:38:40 +0000

Williams, Unfortunately, that’s what it’s going to have to come down to. All too many of the Old World churches have “lost their first love.”

By: William

William — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:42:52 +0000

George,

I certainly didn’t mean to express too much optimism about the process of resolution. Your points are well taken, especially where you say “That’s why it’s up to us to do it one way or the other.” Perhaps we might have to be as drastic as the Russians were when they won their autocephaly.

By: George Michalopulos

George Michalopulos — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:52:35 +0000

Dean, make that three.

Dear-to-Christ: Tom, Robert, et al. To believe anything else is sophistry at best, heresy at worst. It puts our heritages above the Church. Don’t think we won’t be held to account for that. Why? Because if we continue down this path, we will see the extinction of the Church in North America. The Holy Spirit will not go where He is not wanted.

By: Chrys

Chrys — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 20:40:06 +0000

Dean,make that two.

By: Dean Calvert

Dean Calvert — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 18:01:39 +0000

Dear Robert,

Regarding your comments:
“What is wrong with the current the situation in the “western” lands? Yes, yes I know all arguments about jurisdictions, ethnic divisions, multiple bishops in a city etc. etc. But the questions remains, is this situation really wrong per se? There is something unorthodox about the proposed “solutions” i.e. a centralized monolith, akin to Rome. One could make the argument that what we have here has never before been encountered in the history of the Church. But does that make it wrong, or undesirable even?”

Personally, I think the situation in America is different, but not as complicated as some would like to make it.

The tradition of the church is for ecclesial boundaries to follow the secular ones. This goes all the way back to the Roman Empire, and had been followed faithfully during the Middle Ages, the Ottoman period, and down to the present. Witness the independence of the various national churches following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, and even the independence of the Georgian, Estonian, and Macedonian churches following the breakup of the Soviet empire. You can also see the rumblings of independence taking place in Ukraine.

Second, we kid ourselves if we think this is the first time in history that various Orthodox nationalities coexisted side-by-side in the same nation. This was true during the first 1500 years of the Church (the Eastern Empire was at least as diverse as the US), during the Ottoman period of the church (all of the Orthodox peoples became subservient to the EP), and in Russia today. I’ve often said the church is organized on a principle which is instantly recognizable to any modern American businessman as the geographic franchise system. In a way, it’s just like Starbucks, i.e. you walk into Starbucks in Moscow, New York or Shanhai – the person behind the counter will change, but you change the coffee and you lose your license.

There is a quote on our website from the Council of Constantinople, 1872 which expresses the degree of outrage the Church viewed the setting up of separate ethnic parishes. You can see this at http://members5.boardhost.com/STANDREWHOUSE/ This statement was pointed out to me by Archbishop Peter of New York, of blessed memory.

The key phrase is “…we proclaim that those who accept such division according to races and who dare to base on it hitherto unheard-of racial assemblies are foreign to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are real schismatics.”

This statement was issued in response to the Bulgarian Church seeking to setup Bulgarian Orthodox parishes in the region of Constantinople, to serve Bulgarian immigrants in that region. The Church responded with disgust, as is evident in the language. As Abp Peter told me, “Dean…they didn’t just say ‘no’…they LAUGHED at these people, saying ‘in 2000 years this is the most ridiculous thing we have ever seen.'” I’ve always thought His Eminence was correct, the sarcasm drips off the words.

So the real problem is the genesis of the American situation…it was begun by various ethnic groups, each of whom now have a vested interest in controlling those groups in the New World.

Can we possibly be so parochial and self centered that we are willing to allow the Church to die on these shores, rather than give up control of the various ethnic colonial outposts?

It’s complicated, but not nearly as complicated as some would have us believe.

Personally, I think the answer is to return to another time-tested Orthodox tradition…locally elected bishops, sitting in synod. I’d be prepared to seat that synod of bishops, and leave it to them and the Holy Spirit.

Of course, I seem to be a cult of one.

Just a few random thoughts.

Best Regards,
Dean

By: Tom Kanelos

Tom Kanelos — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 17:18:04 +0000

William,

You said it much more clearly than I have done.

By: George Michalopulos

George Michalopulos — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:29:02 +0000

Robert, your answer in sentence #2 answers the question in sentence #1. Were you being rhetorical? Among many of my concerns brought about because of lack of conciliar unity, is the growing divergence in liturgy, morals, and teachings, those things that fall under the rubric known as “Orthopraxy.”

Let’s be honest, there’s more than a little jurisdiction-hopping that’s been going on for several years now. It’s going to take its toll. One of the inevitable outcomes of this will be the formal breaking of communion. I doubt then we’ll be as sanguine about the “work of the Holy Spirit” if and when that happens.

As for your fear about a “proposed solution” being a “centralized monolith akin to Rome,” you are absolutely right! that would be horrible, and yet one gets the distinct impression that that is what C’pole wants. That is why me and others like me (OCL) admire the authentic Christian model of local, autocephalous churches with all the bishops within the political boundaries of that church in communion with each other and in concilium as well. This model implies that the diocesan boundaries are respected.

By: Tamara Northway

Tamara Northway — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:05:20 +0000

I for one, have never considered myself part of a diaspora. My grandparents came over here from Syria in the early 20th century with the intention of never returning. My grandfather quickly became literate in English and took the oath to become a citizen of the United States. My children are of mixed ancestry and yet, thank God, are still dedicated Orthodox Christians. We need a local, autocephalous Orthodox Church of North America that can respond to the needs of my children’s generation and to the millions of seekers in this land, who are looking for the true faith. Local synods, with true diocesan bishops who control their own budgets are the ones who know how this culture is trying to recruit and devour our children. Marginalized patriarchates who live thousands of miles away and are held captive by Muslim states, are in no position to know or even be capable of meeting their needs. In fact, in a very short time, most of the ancient patriarchates will need a strong, united, local Church here to be able to help them to survive in hostile Muslim territory.

By: Robert F.

Robert F. — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:14:04 +0000

What is wrong with the current the situation in the “western” lands? Yes, yes I know all arguments about jurisdictions, ethnic divisions, multiple bishops in a city etc. etc. But the questions remains, is this situation really wrong per se? There is something unorthodox about the proposed “solutions” i.e. a centralized monolith, akin to Rome. One could make the argument that what we have here has never before been encountered in the history of the Church. But does that make it wrong, or undesirable even? At one time never before was there a state-Church alliance, a Christian monarch, and so forth. These were all new developments at one time or another and the Church adapted, thrived and survived. One can look back and see the work of the Holy Spirit in this. Who is to say we won’t look back on this western so called “diaspora” – with all its difficulties and challenges – as the work of God in our midst? Would we dare elevate our concept of unity above the Holy Spirit? Do we know better than Him? Do we not trust God to work things out as He sees fit? We who claim the “fullness”?

By: George Michalopulos

George Michalopulos — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:39:39 +0000

William, your analysis is rational. The only problem I see with it is the optimistic view that it will be rendered “obsolete” when the situation is going to be “resolved.” The issue is not going to be resolved on its own because too many Old World patriarchates (though not all) have no intention of resolving it. They are not acting in good faith. That’s why it’s up to us to do it one way or the other.

Although I do see your point that some of us may be overreacting to this word, the point behind this overreaction still stands. I can charitably say that the Old World may not understand its implications and as such can be forgiven for using it (because to them we look like many diasporas), but we who are Americans will be called to account for it.

Let me explain: because for too long we have viewed ourselves as a diaspora, “we have hidden our light under the bushel.” In other words, we have not acted as a church.
We will be called to account for that.

Yes, words do mean things. For example, in the political arena, those of us who are conservative/libertarian tend to be very careful about words. All societies have leaders, ours however is called a “president” not a “king” even though they have many of the same executive powers. We are a “republic” based on certain democratic principles, not a “democracy.” &c.

The promiscuous use of words likewise harms the Church, perhaps to the same degree that it harms the State. We misuse words like “cathedral” to describe “really big churches,” rather than what a cathedral is: the parish church of the local bishop, where his cathedra is located. In an earlier essay, I spoke about the profligate misuse of the venerable term “metropolitan,” which distorts the office of bishop.

By: William

William — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 11:22:31 +0000

I think the word “diaspora,” for better or for worse, is used as a convenient reference to the Orthodox situation in Western lands, simply because the matter of a single Orthodox jurisdiction in, say, North America, has not been resolved (even if it was supposedly clear before the 1920s, it isn’t today, regardless of the arguments about how it ought to be). When that question is resolved, and when the resolution is recognized by all the major players, then the use of the word “diaspora” will gradually disappear and all the sniveling about it can begin to subside. Even if it is imprecise that the Orthodox in America can be called a diaspora, the situation of Orthodox jurisdictionalism in America is the result of a diaspora (several, in fact), giving the term at least a vestige of accuracy. Of course, maybe a better term could be chosen and encouraged, but the real work to be done is not bickering or boo-hooing over the choice of words to describe this mess that exists, but rather it is the setting of a course for our Church that will of itself render such terms obsolete. Honestly, the degree to which people will argue about this stuff verges on the absurd! And I find the comparison of “diaspora” with “homoiousion” to be incongruous. Yes, I understand that words matter, but just as some matters are more significant than others, some words matter more than others, really.

By: George Michalopulos

George Michalopulos — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:51:02 +0000

Andrew, for the record, I am proud of my Hellenic descent and continue to speak Greek with my parents and relatives. I just choose not to subjugate my Christian identity with my ethnic heritage or my nationality (which is American).

I applaud you for continuing to raise your children with a Russian consciousness and language. I have endeavored to do that myself.

My statement may be an overreaction, but all heresy begins with a little truth. That’s why I react vehemently against the term “diaspora.” It means I don’t belong here, which leads to the next logical question: “where do I belong?” and also: “why don’t I belong here?” This is where the “diasporist” gets stuck with a racial/ethnic tar-baby (pardon the pun). It defines his personhood which inexorably leads to the necessary dimininution of one’s Christian identity.

How important is Christianity? One is either a Christian or he isn’t. One can be a Greek (or Russian, Serb, Arab, Indian, etc.) or not. Even the racialist doesn’t really care if one is “not” whatever strikes his fancy. Whether one is Christian or not is significant. I can have fellowship with that person, but I cannot share the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior with him. Obviously that is of vital importance.

By: Tom Kanelos

Tom Kanelos — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:06:02 +0000

“Tom, the Mother Churches can be wrong. Heresy can and has been preached in the past by erudite bishops.”

Certainly. But what is your point? This comment has nothing to do with the argument.

We see, once again, you choose to change the subject rather than admit an error.

By: Andrew K.

Andrew K. — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:04:27 +0000

George,

Never did I imply that you give undue “worship” to your own nation.

From your name, I would guess that you have Greek ancestry, but choose not to identify as an ethnic Greek. I respect that decision.

As for myself, I have Russian ancestry, was born and grew up in Australia, and am currently residing indefinitely in England. I have been brought up to speak Russian and will endeavour to raise my own children to do so as well. However, like you, I recognise the universal calling of Christianity, and, like you, I deplore any efforts to subordinate it to any ethnic identities. Likewise, I ackowledge that my choice to maintain my Russian identity is my own, and have no problem with those who, for various reasons, may choose to let it go. I would rather my own children lapse in their Russianness than in their Orthodoxy.

I am happy to say that I have many friends who think similarly.

I can see perfectly the kind of problem that you are reacting against – I’ve seen enough of it myself. However, the statement you made is clearly an over-reaction in itself, one that has no scriptural or patristic foundation whatsoever.

Andrew