Isa, thanks for the clarification. Personally, I think Namee was probably right on target about some of his characterizations. My question was: why bring it up now? It can’t help but look as condemnatory of the Russian Mission. Also, why stop there? Also, the idea that this bishop was “incompetent” or that one a “nationalist” struck me as special spleading. All one has to do is look to the bishops of the GOA since Alexander in 1921 and see the same type of idiocy. (As for the “nationalist” charge, most Grreek-Americans over 40 years old remmeber being taught in church how evil the Turks were and how glorious Greece was. If that’s not nationalism, I don’t know what is.)

If I may, my criticism of SOCHA is not with its facts (which as I’ve said time and again and will continue to say til the cows come home) are nothing short of solid, but with the interpretation of those facts. Basically, to state that there was not a functioning Orthodox diocese in North America, canonical in all respects, missionary in outlook, and acknowledged as such by both the Old World and the US. If that’s not the definition of church unity, then I don’t know what is.

Let’s look at it this way: suppose the entire Southern Baptist Conference decided to become Orthodox tomorrow. That’s 15,000,000 Americans. Should they be allowed to overwhelm the local Orthodox Church? Should its new bishops be allowed to set up their own jurisdiction? If not, why not? That’s analogous to the picture that SOCHA has more or less uncovered, that the massive infusion of 300,000 non-Russian Orthodox in 30 years should wipe away the operation of the existing diocese. (And even this isn’t completely true as the existing diocese struggled mightily to accommodate non-Russians.)

Ultimately, the two narratives that have been identified –missionary vs. colonialist–are obvious. If one chooses to view the Church as an organic body that sanctifies a nation, then one sees the planting of a diocese as providential, even if the actors within it were incompetent, sinful, near-sighted, etc. In other words, God uses flawed humans for His own purposes. If on other hand one is concerned with the antiquarian notions of a historical enterprise (in this case the American Church), then one can easily become consumed with the knick-knacks and tchotchkes found in Grannie’s attic. For good history to proceed, both are necessary but the latter one is unconcerned with the grand narrative of the enterprise in question. It can’t logically overwhelm the common consciousness of a people. After all, we all had grannies who had knick-knacks in their parlors or black velvet portraits of dogs playing poker in their attics, so what?

That’s what has been happening in America the last 50 years, instead of looking at the men who founded this country as visionaries who made mistakes, we’ve taught our children to look at them as evil, dead, white men who bought and sold slaves. We’re more interested in reading Jefferson’s diaries to find out if he was anywhere near the vicinity of Sally Hemming’s nine months before her children were born. Instead, we should be concerned about where he got his ideas and if they’re still applicable today. When studying the Church, it’s the grand narrative that matters, otherwise, focusing on reductionism obviates the essential truths of the Church. I dare say can even justify heresy.

(I realize this last point may sound harsh, but has anybody given consideration to the seemingly endless ecumenical conferences that deal with the Filioque clause? What is that if not the reductionist impulse? Can any of us state unambiguously that the Catholic interpretation is wrong? We’ve been throwing proof-texts at each other since the council of Toledo.)

Scott, I understood your critique I just wanted to further refine my bona fides, i.e. that I’m not an agent of the OCA. BTW, I very much appreciate your perspective on the matter.

George,

I apologize for the way I characterized your involvement in the issue. I tried to make it clear that I was not being perjorative in any sense since, by and large, I agree with you. Just as you are correct in pointing out that Namee’s position, whether intended or not, supports Constantinople’s narrative, it is also true that your position supports the OCA’s narrative. I should have been more careful though in the way I referred to you since some of what I wrote could be taken to mean that I think your view of the facts is guided by your allegiance to the OCA. Rather, I think you looked at the facts and formed an opinion of them that happens to coincide more or less with the OCA’s claims and thus furthers their purpose. Again, I don’t think there’s anything whatsoever wrong with that.

Namee, not being able to eradicate the episcopal line that existed for the Russian diocese in North America, gives a decidedly negative editorial comment after the name of each bishop (St Tikhon of course excepted). One bishop is a suspected pedophile (no proof), the other is “incompetent”, another is a “nationalist” (shocker!) yet another is a “flake.”

I just didn’t want to leave this hanging. Although Namee doesn’t give proof in this post on the suspected pedophilia, he does discuss it and its repurcussions elsewhere on the site (the suspicions of it and the scandal and fallout contributed to the failure of the Russian Archdiocese to found a united parish in Chicago in the 1880’s). On the Holy Trinity SF (OCA) website “Pages of our history”, look under 1891. The Russian Consul of SF stormed out of SF in protest, leaveing with Prince George of Greece to NYC, a fateful trip, as it the NYC Greek community were induced during their stay in NYC to form their first parish (perhaps something Cousul Oralovsky, given his distaste for Bishop Vladimir, may have encouraged or looked the other way. As for the nationalist charges, they were raised at the time (there is a xenophobic NYTimes article that epitomizes it at the time), but that was being debated in the Old World (e.g. Galicia) as well (there is an interesting book published during WWI but before the US entry, by a AustroHungarian diplomat that makes the “Russification” charge).as were the charges of incompetence for the other. And anyone in the “Living Church” was a flake. Again, Nameee has posted the data for these charges elsewhere on the site. Though I don’t think he was making a Donatist argument, I see how that can be misconstrewed.

You are rigth about the see thing: Alexandria, for instance, just over a century ago was reduced to 3 bishops, basically functionaries of the phanar with a lot of dead and titular sees without even a bishop claimin the title. Now the Holy Synod has several dozen sees with real people in them all across the African continent.

As for the episcopal peccadillos, he has posted on odd Greeks, Arabs, Bulgarians and others as well. That it only seems he is concentrating on the Russian Archdiocese’s bishops is the reason you know: they were the only bishops in town for most of the time the site covers. I wouldn’t recommend examining recent examples: there is something to be said for hindsight and the moderating effect of time on views.

There is one thing that Namee is right on: it is an anachronism to see the Archdiocese of 1794-1917 like the OCA or GOA of today, just as the state of the Federal Government of Today shouldn’t be projected back to elucidate the Federal Government of 1789. But then again, the Russian Missionary Archdiocese was a work in progress at the time, in changing times.

Isa,

Actually, I think it’s deeper than that. What ROCOR claimed was that since the MP was under communist domination, the Russian Church outside Russia had to govern itself autonomously. Later, when they had the ability to do so, they even established underground “free Russian parishes” in Russia. I also don’t find anything strange about the name “Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia”. In Russian, the words used actually mean, “beyond the border/frontier”, which is why it is often also called the “Russian Orthodox Church Abroad”. It’s not prohibited to expand into territory not belonging to any other church – – in fact you could say it’s a duty. As a practical matter, what the Metropolia actually claimed to be was the Russian Orthodox Church in America (which is, of course, outside of Russia).

ROCOR claims that the Metropolia was part of ROCOR and there was some intrigue associated with the events from 1917-1934. There were two Metropolia bishops, Met. Platon and Archbp. Alexander, present at the Karlovstsy synod. From ROCOR’s perspective, the Russian Church in America was part of the wider free Church of Russia (ROCOR) at that point. Later, Met. Platon forged a letter from Pat. Tikhon declaring him the head of the Church in America (a position he already held by virtue of appointment by ROCOR). One thing led to another and Platon decided he wanted to break the Metropolia away from both Moscow and ROCOR. Which he managed to do for about 9 years. Then, in 1935, the Metropolia officially rejoined ROCOR. This declaration was made to the Metropolia faithful by their hierarchs:

“With great joy, we inform you, beloved, that at our Bishop’s Sobor in Pittsburgh, the ‘Temporary Statue of the Russian Church Abroad,’ worked out in November 1935 by our Hierarchs at the conference held under the presidency of His Holiness Patriarch of Serbia, Kyr Varnava, was unanimously accepted by all of us…. All of our Archpastors [the Metropolia bishops], headed by our Metropolitan [Theophilus], enter into the make-up of the Bishops’ Council [in Karlovci] of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which is the highest ecclesiastical organ for our whole Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, and which remains, at the same time, an inseparable part of the All-Russian Church [in the homeland]” This lasted until 1946 at which time their was a schism.

St. John Maximovitch apparently considered that the Metropolia had been part of ROCOR. This makes sense if you consider for a moment ROCOR’s own self understanding – – they saw themselves as the free Church of Russia or, to put it another way, they saw themselves to be the “successor” to the Church of Russia itself, not just the RMA. In that sense, I concede the point. Their view was less limited than that of the Metropolia. Nonetheless, hopefully, it doesn’t matter. Up until May of 2007, the history may have had some practical implications. However, in reuniting with the MP, ROCOR has probably at least implicitly acknowledged the MP’s position toward the OCA and thus will eventually unite with it.

The thing to bear in mind is that today we think of ROCOR as an American Orthodox jurisdiction. However, its own self understanding was that it was the continuation of the Church of Russia, necessary since the Church in Russia had fallen into collaboration with the communist government there. Thus, while the Metropolia was a local entity, ROCOR was not.

…or Donatist?

Harry, you charted some of this course years ago, trail-blazed it actually. Don’t give up.

George, you may have a point. If an episcopal line is disenfranchised by the (alleged) bad characters of the men occupying the office, then Protestant ecclesiology is being read into the argument. The discussion will inevitably devolve into (or has as its starting point?) interest-group activism, that same affliction that affects so much of our body politic.

You know, for all the (correct) disapproval of the Congregationalist ethos that shaped the anomalous parishes in the early years (SOCHA provides an invaluable resource here), the attempted disenfranchisement has a decidedly Congregationalist flavor.

Fr. Hans,

So many years, so many perfectly true and appropriate words.

They walk down the mental roads they’ve known among their best friends and best sparring opponents these many years. I bet half of them there if asked could write a paper pretending as though they were one of the others in the room that would be accepted as authentic.

The people making and leading the growth stifling decisions view ‘good points’ and ‘reasons’, ‘canons’ and ‘history’ as arrows in a quiver to be mentioned if they further the agenda they favor and if not to be simply ignored and the cost of that discounted and not felt. Easier to do among those whose idea of time resets once every 24 hours and every 365 days — in short: those who don’t have spouses and children.

Yes…I’m clearing my schedule anticipating more cogent remarks from Fr. Elpidoforos!!!

Well…at least the guy is honest…tells us what he thinks. We may not like it, but we can deal with that.

BTW – Does anyone know if AFR is recording the event?

Best Regards,
dean

Fr Oliver, thank you for your words of wisdom. Forgive me if I’ve ever given offense. I think we can all agree that the level of discourse on this thread at least has been very edifying and constructively critical. I believe it is critical that this discussion continue; not only is it of historical importance, it has ramifications for today. Yes, we need each other, but we also need the truth. The only way to arrive at the truth is by free, open, and honest debate, one done in good faith.

I just read Dr. Bouteneff’s introductory remarks. They are very good, excellent in fact, and if the seminar holds to the boundaries and meets some of the goals he set forward, it could be of great benefit to us. Obviously a lot of care went into crafting it. I suggest everyone read it: Opening Remarks of Dr. Peter C. Bouteneff.

Just for clarification, I do not see Constantinople’s “Hellenism apologetic” and historical Hellenism as one and the same. (In fact, I see the appropriation of the term “Hellenism” to promote an ecclesiastical monarchy as deliberate obfuscation.) Rather, the Church (indeed, Western Civilization) has been shaped by Hellenism properly understood. It’s no accident that the architecture of major buildings in Washington, DC is neo-classical, or that the Magna Carta is called by its Greek, rather than English, name for example.

In this case the words said fall like drops of water into lovely pots filled with the perfume of flowers — silk and plastic.

Best post on this subject yet, Michael.

Lord help us. Looking at the schedule of the conference, I am reminded of the Simon and Garfunkel song, “The Dangling Coversation” about two lovers who have lost their first love and now exist in a meaningless void no longer really touching one another but they “speak of things that matter, with words that must be said…”