Some Thoughts on American Orthodox Historiography

time-outRecently, a lively exchange has been going on between two of our most respected correspondents. It is regarding the primacy of the first Orthodox jurisdiction in the United States. I’m going to allow it to continue because a wealth of information is coming out, some of which was unknown to me. I imagine this is the case for many of you. As such, the debate and the bringing forth of documents is all to the good.

Yours Truly is taking notes because of his own interest in this matter. We ask therefore that this exchange to continue, that it be done in as fraternal spirit as possible.

To both both men, hank you both for your cooperation. If anybody else would like to comment and/or bring forth additional information, please feel free to do so –preferably on this particular posting. This is a fascinating topic and one that is important in its own way to American Orthodoxy, especially as we try to go forward.

P.S. I thank everybody who has observed the truce of the Canon of St Andrew. The comments that you did make were civil and unobjectionable.

P.S.S. And of course, I beg forgiveness of anyone I may have offended by word or deed, by commission as well as omission.

Comments

  1. Lola J. Lee Beno says

    Umm, what exchange? I’ve not been checking this blog much lately and not really following the comments thread. So, if you could give me a point of reference, that would be good.

    • Lola, it’s all on the “Salt Lake City” article under the most recent postings. It’s too much to read really but interesting.

      So gentlemen you may have stated this but who had the first bishop in lower America, or even Alaska once it was officially US territory?

      • Isa Almisry says

        “So gentlemen you may have stated this but who had the first bishop in lower America, or even Alaska once it was officially US territory?”
        Bishop Paul (Popov) of Novoarkhangelsk (Sitka), Auxiliary of the Kamchatka Diocese. By terms of the Cession Treaty, he was an eligible US citizen, and his diocese incorporated as the Diocese of Alaska under US Federal Constitutional law. He, however, returned to Russia, but not without a touch of American flair: the New York Times records on November 25, 1870 about the Thanksgiving (as in the US holiday) services in the NYC Orthodox chapel that

        servives were conducted by Bishop PAUL, formerly Bishop of Alaska, who is on his way to Russia, to assume his new position as Bishop of Siberia. Rev. Mr. BJERRING also officiated. The litany was said by the Bishop, while prayers for the Emperor and Empress of Russian, and for the President and people of the United States were offered by the pastor.

        http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9B04E3D6113DE53BBC4D51DFB767838B669FDE
        On November 12, 1870, Bp. Paul had consecrated the chapel of NYC, another jurisdictional act.

        Even the visiting Russian Grand Duke Alexis, the Czar’s brother, celebrated Thanksgiving at the Orthodox Church in NYC in 1871:
        http://orthodoxhistory.org/2010/11/25/grand-duke-alexis-in-the-new-york-chapel-thanksgiving-1871/

        Bp. Paul’s successor John came as Bishop of the Aleutians and Alaska, but with his see in San Francicso. He continued the Americanization program:from the journal Christian Union, 10/4/1871

        Bishop Johannes, of the Russo-Greek Church on the Pacific coast, has ordered the prayer for the President of the United States, contained in the Liturgy of the Episcopal Church, to be used by the Greek Priests.

        http://orthodoxhistory.org/2010/07/13/prayers-for-the-president/

  2. Isa Almisry says

    Peter Papoutsis: “The Greek Orthodox community was established and worshipping since 1860. What failed was their purchase of a church building. However the community was up and running by 1860.”
    The Russian-Ukrainian-Finn-Aleut-Kashaya Native Californian-Serb (and later, Greek) community was up and running in its own Church it built in the 1820′s, and were relocated in SF when the US came in 1850. Not to be redundant, but to repeat what I have already said:

    the Russians were still in CA when it became a US state in 1850. And, unlike New Orleans, they were in a canonical jurisdiction, with a bishop and served by Orthodox clergy. The New Orleans parish didn’t begin to get that until 1867. By then the parish of San Francisco was already being prepared to become the Cathedral of North America, the move completed in 1870. Now the Cathedral of the West, it lies blocks away from Russian Hill, named for the Russian Orthodox cemetery that stood on top of it the first half of the 19th century, as Russian ships frequented the Bay after 1806-indeed, Russia lay claim to it, causing the Spanish to come up north in an attempt to preserve their monopoly in the West.

    https://www.monomakhos.com/doing-church-while-greek/#comment-71514

    “Also I have no idea what you are talking about with the distinction between territories and states. Both are the legal properties of the U.S. government. ”
    You’re the one making a dogmatic distinction, not I, and I’m not sure you have an idea of what you are talking about.

    “If you want to site me some legal precident or statute”
    Get it clear in your own head first.

    “then your rraching for strsws ”
    All I need to reach for is a copy of the canons, cited above, the Alaskan Cession Treaty, and the Tomos of Autocephaly for the OCA. Rock hard facts, not a straw among them.

    “Isa I cannot keep proving you wrong so I am going to stop.”
    LOL. One has to start first before stopping.

    “It is getting tiresome and boring. You live with you delusions”
    Physician, heal thyself.

    “I’ll live with the truth. Have a great Lent and enjoy that OCA Independence because in the end the GOA, ROCOR, AOA and all the rest of the Orthodox jurisdiction really don’t care and will carry on with or without the OCA.”
    I’ll live with this truth, eloquently expressed by Met. (and hopefully one day Patriarch) Hilarion:

    Nevertheless, regardless of recognition or non-recognition of the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America, nobody challenges the canonicity of her archpastors and clergy. It enables her to be a full-fledged participant in the common life of the Church by sending her representatives to numerous inter-Orthodox meetings. The more bishops and priests of this Church participate in common church events, the sooner, I believe, this matter of the pan-Orthodox recognition of her status will be settled.

    And it is very important that the Primate of this Church, equally with Primates of other Local Orthodox Churches, should participate in inter-Orthodox events every time when invited. Indeed, the presence of the Primate of the American Church in inter-Orthodox events will be the most eloquent testimony that this Church is serious about her autocephaly and makes efforts to have this autocephaly recognized by other Local Orthodox Churches as well.

    http://www.interfax-religion.com/print.php?act=interview&id=92

    “The parish in New Orleans got its first antimension from the Russian bishop.”
    “That’s great! That means alot to ROCOR, but means nothing to the OCA! Try again dear Bishop.”
    The dear bishop, himself the successor of the Russian bishop, need not try again if his assertion is true: the Metropolitan of the OCA, not the First Hierarch of ROCOR, succeeds the Russian bishop in question. We know for sure that the New Orleans parish didn’t have an an antimension under its first “priest,” as he came to the Russian Mission demanding one.

    “Isa, check this out from the Nicholas Benachi House website…”
    Memory Eternal! We offered prayers ourselves when there (but outside: the gates were closed already when we arrived, but the Orthodox section was in view). As we offered here:

    Two Memorials served for Colonel Philip Ludwell III – Tuesday March 14/27
    Tuesday, March 14/27, 2012 marked the two hundred and forty fifth anniversary of the repose of Colonel Philip Ludwell III, a native of Williamsburg, Virginia…He is the first known convert to Orthodoxy in the Americas, having traveled from Virginia to be received at the Russian Orthodox Church in London, England in 1738. Further details of his life may be found elsewhere on this site.

    http://orthodoxhistory.org/2012/03/29/two-memorials-served-for-colonel-philip-ludwell-iii-tuesday-march-1427/
    I offered the prayers at his house-the Ludwell-Paradise (John Paradise being his son-in-law, also Orthodox) at Williamsburg.

    “Now according to Holy Trinity Catherial’s website the Russian Orthodox Church there was official incorporated on September 2, 1967.”
    Time for a new prescription for your glasses: according to Holy Trinity Catherial’s website the Russian Orthodox Church there was officially incorporated on September 2, 1867
    From the OCA official website: Holy Trinity Cathedral
    San Francisco, California
    Founded 1857
    http://oca.org/parishes/oca-we-sfohtk

    And from the Cathedral’s official website:

    Our Story
    A Brief History of Holy Trinity Cathedral
    Holy Trinity Cathedral Parish traces its history to December 2, 1857, when the first Orthodox Society was founded in San Francisco. Ten years latter, on September 2, 1867, it was incorporated as the Greek Russian Slavonian Orthodox Eastern Church and Benevolent Society. During these years, the Orthodox population of the Bay Area was spiritually and sacramentally served by chaplains from Russian Navy ships that frequented San Francisco Bay.

    http://www.holy-trinity.org/about/history.html
    IOW, the parish was orgainized as an Orthodox Society years before the New Orleans Parish, and almost half a century before the NO was incorporated.

    “Now if the Greeks don’t have the superior right then ROCOR should have the suprior right? Oh, I forgot ROCOR is a non-entity, sorry ROCOR. Wait, Moscow should have the suprior right but they don’t have any churches in America do they? Oh, that’s right, I forgot Moscow does not care about the OCA becuase it has representational churches on the OCA’s sacred ground here in America.”
    LOL. Rather rich, given the fact that the Phanar exercises jurisdiction still over half of Greece (the “New Lands,” Crete, the Islands)
    Moscow does have the superior right, which it gave to the OCA:
    http://oca.org/history-archives/tomos-of-autocephaly

    “Hey, has Metropolitan Philip dissolved the AOA and joined with the OCA yet? Opps! I guess not.””
    The Archdiocese deferred to the right of the OCA to glorify St. Raphael Hawaweenii

    “I like this game, but like I said before, Its getting tiring and borning defeating your arguments one after another, after another.”
    Proverbs 26:12

    A blessed Lent, and “try being less dogmatic and partisan on these matters, except of course when it comes to Orthodox dogma.”

    • Archpriest John W. Morris says

      The Antiochian Archdiocese deferred to the OCA to glorify St. Raphael, because he was a Bishop under the Russians for the Arab Orthodox. St. Raphael died in 1915. The Antiochian Archdiocese was not formed until 1924. As I have noted many times before, our presence here is canonical because Antioch had the blessing of the Russian Bishops of the Metropolia, Moscow and the Bishops who formed ROCOR to assume jurisdiction over parishes of Arab heritage in North America. The argument about who was here first is meaningless, because whatever unity existed here was destroyed in the chaos that followed the Russian Revolution of 1917. Now the situation is completely different. The only way that unity will be achieved is through mutual agreement of all the canonical Orthodox jurisdictions here in America. We cannot go back and pretend that everything since 1917 did not happen. We have to recognize the situation as it exists today. That will require a period of growing together. Thus, I believe that the first step is a confederation of the canonical Orthodox jurisdictions in North America, which a Synod of Bishops representing the various jurisdictions at the head of the Church on the national level.

      • Peter Papoutsis says

        That is an excellent idea. I think that most American Orthodox would defintely support and want that. Again, excellent idea.

        Peter

        • Isa Almisry says

          It would be-if the “Mother Churches” translate their jurisdictions in North America to it. It is different from the unification of the Serbian and Romanian Patriarchates after WWI, as only one Church in North America is autocephalous.

          • Isa Almisry says

            “PS. Isa contact me via e-mail so we can talk privately.”
            George, make it so.

      • Isa Almisry says

        “The argument about who was here first is meaningless, because whatever unity existed here was destroyed in the chaos that followed the Russian Revolution of 1917.”
        I’m afraid, Father, that the canons would not so hold. Ephesus 8 specifies “none of the Bishops most beloved by God shall take hold of any other province that was not formerly and from the beginning in his jurisdiction, or was not, that is to say, held by his predecessors,” and when Cyprus devolved into the chaos of the conquests of the caliphs, the Fathers created the model of the “Church-in-exile” to preserve its status.

        Abp. St. Tikhon (the future patriarch) wrote concerning the jurisdiction in the New World in 1905, in preparation for the All Russia Council (whose convening was delayed for over a decade, and took the fall of the Czar and the Holy Governing Synod scheme to come about: which then restored the Patriarchate of Moscow under St. Tikhon):

        The diocese of North America must be reorganized into an Exarchate of the Russian Church in North America. The diocese is not only multi-national; it is composed of several orthodox Churches, which keep the unity of faith, but preserve their peculiarities in canonical structure, in liturgical rules, in parish life. These particularities are dear to them and can perfectly be tolerated on the pan-orthodox scene. We do not consider that we have the right to suppress the national character of the churches here; on the contrary, we try to preserve this character and we confer on them the latitude to be guided by leaders of their own nationality. Thus, the Syrian Church here received a bishop of its own (the Most Rev. Raphael of Brooklyn), who is nominally the second vicar to the diocesan bishop of the Aleutian Islands, but is almost independent in his own sphere (the bishop of Alaska having the same position). The Serbian parishes are now organized under one immediate head, who for the time beign is an archimandrite, but who can be elevated to the episcopacy in the nearest future. The Greeks also desire to have their own bishop and are trying to settle the matter with the Synod of Athens. In other words, in North America a whole Exarchate can easily be established, uniting all orthodox national Churches, which would have their own bishops under one Exarch, the Russian Archbishop. Each one of them is independent in his own sphere, but the common affairs of the American Church are decided in a Synod, presided by the Russian Archbishop. Through him a link is preserved between the American Church and the Church of Russia and a certain dependence of the former on the latter. It should be remembered however that life in the New World is different from that of the old; our Church must take this into consideration; a greater autonomy (and possibly autocephaly) should therefore be granted to the Church of America, as compared with the other Metropolitan sees of the Russian Church. The North American Exarchate would comprise: (1) the archdiocese of New York, with jurisdiction over all Russian Churches in the United States and Canada. (2) the diocese of Alaska, for the orthodox inhabitants of Alaska (Russians, Aleutians, Indians, Eskimos). (3) The diocese of Brooklyn (Syrian). (4) the diocese of Chicago (Serbian). (5) he bishopric (?) of the Greeks..

        http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/10/21/st-tikhons-vision-1905/

        I haven’t seen “the blessing of the Russian Bishops of the Metropolia, Moscow and the Bishops who formed ROCOR to assume jurisdiction over parishes of Arab heritage in North America,” so I cannot comment on details, but I have seen the blessings for the Greeks, and-although coy-it is clear that is is strictly a “the greater blesses the lesser” blessing-IOW jurisdiction was being delegated, not ceded.

        ” The only way that unity will be achieved is through mutual agreement of all the canonical Orthodox jurisdictions here in America.”
        That would be the means to the end otherwise mandated by the canons.

      • George Michalopulos says

        Fr, Isa’s rebuttal to your assertion that whatever happened in the past is “irrelevant” is significant. Even when the patriarchate of C’pole was in heresy it’s administrative validity was never challenged.

        IMHO, what’s irrelevant is the present non-canonical situation and the comical solution of the Episcopal Assembly process designed to “correct” it. Thanks to ROCOR and your own jurisdiction, that is now irrelevant. The entire situation could be resolved if the people and the bishops in the US wanted to resolved it. But as we can see from the recently concluded synaxis in Istanbul, the old world patriarchates are not going to let go regardless of what we want anyway.

        Furthermore, the OCA will not be able to lead the way forward because of its recent troubles. I’m afraid the only thing that will bring us together will be an active persecution by the Godless secularists who govern this country and are only getting more emboldened in their depravity.

        • Tim R. Mortiss says

          Never happen, Peter, Canon 28 gives China to Antioch; can’t you read? 😉

        • Michael Bauman says

          Peter, there is a deeper reason, IMO, why the Patriarchates are not letting go: the Church in this country has yet to fully embrace the people and the land of this country. We are still, even we converts, floating on the top of things so to speak–a diaspora in spirit if not in reality.

          The Russian evangelization of Alaska was of a quality that embraced both the land and the people of the new world (whatever the borders). No on else has done that and their work was interrupted and virtually destroyed by the U.S. Government’s sponsorship of Protestant cultural rapists, errrr, “missionaries” once we bought Alaska.

          Until the Church returns and re-embraces Americans in all of our diversity brought here by force or came here in a new hope or already here when the rest of us arrived, she will not be anything but a still-born creature of the mother Churches.

          That is our work–not theirs. The EA does not address that in any way whatsoever and, unfortunately, many of the voices raised in the Church for the concerns of this land are more beholden to political ideology (of various sorts) than they are interested in making the Church a living reality here.

          It is easy to criticize the Patriarchates simply thinking we are an ATM because there is some of that involved. However, we still rely on their foundation in the traditional lands for a depth and meaning we are unable and/or unwilling to establish here. Maybe it is a Catch-22, I don’t know, but it is not as simply as you and others make it out to be.

          • Tim R. Mortiss says

            Why would anybody “come in a new hope” to a land of “Protestant cultural rapists”?

            We can likely be sure of one thing: if North America were Russian, it would be “no Protestants allowed”, much as it was with New France.

            Has Russia long been a land of “new hope”, to which the poor and oppressed of the world have fled in their afflictions?

            When my people, and my wife’s people, came here, they and their descendants were not disappointed.

            • Michael Bauman says

              Tim R. the Protestant ‘missionaries’ to Alaska tore apart families, tribes and a multi-lingual Chrisitan culture that the Aleuts and others had created within an Orthodox faith. They really weren’t Christian after all. All under the direct sponsorship of the U.S. Government to once again ‘civilize the heathen’.

              The Russian Orthodox missionaries were some of the few in recorded history that actually ministered to the indigenous people instead of taking the side of the traders and the power structure. One of the reasons the indigenous people are still Orthodox.

              It is one of the big differences between Orthodox missiology and Protestant/Catholic missiology but something that is the ‘baptizing of the culture’ that is already there. A mindset that is almost entirely missing from the Orthodox in the lower 48. We are still content to ride along as “Greeks, Arabs, Russians” and allow, all to frequently the un-Christian elements of our culture to influence us inordinately.

            • Isa Almisry says

              Actually, when Philip Ludwell III was received by the Russian Church, the Holy Synod gave him a dispensation to attend Protestant services in Virginia, as they were mandatory.

              And we are sure that the Protestant “missionaries” tried to stamp out Orthodoxy (and anything else of native culture) when the Czar left Alaska. And the Russians allowed Protestants-in fact there is a US court case (the reference escapes me just now, and I don’t have my Lexis access) where the Lutheran congregation were held to have title to land in Sitka, based on the Czar’s patronage of the Lutheran church. And St. Innocent himself allowed Polish missionary priests of the Vatican from Canada come to tend its flock in Alaska.

              Btw, the first settlement of Nouvelle France to last (before the Spanish took it) was settled by Protestants (whom the Spanish massacred).

          • Tim R. Mortiss says

            Yes, I would say that 80-90% of the liturgy at my GOC is in English. Indeed, at that percentage, it is quite welcome for a newcomer to have the Greek, especially inasmuch as the NT is written in Greek. So an ordinary ragged refugee from Protestantism can get back to work on getting at least some Greek, an ambition that one would not have toward, for instance, Slavonic or Arabic.
            After all, I’ve owned a couple of Greek-English interlinear New Testaments for a long time; now I can get back to them with a little more inspiration.

            And when I go to OCA services, I miss having occasional Greek responses sung!

            By the way, I owe to my fraternity at U of Cal/Berkeley the acknowledgement that it taught me the Greek alphabet indelibly. As a pledge, after dinner I’d be called upon to jump up on a chair, light a kitchen match, and recite the Greek alphabet six times before the flame reached my fingers! So I learned at least to transliterate nearly 50 years ago, and I can still say the alphabet “six times on a match” to this day.

            Such are the workings of Providence. 😉

  3. Isa Almisry says

    If anyone has any other canons bearing on this issue, please respond.
    I repost (and augment, with the Canons of the Apostles) the sections on point from the Rudder, the Greek Church’s official compendium of canons (if someone has anything else of authority, again, please post). Οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀκαταστασίας ὁ Θεὸς, ἀλλὰ εἰρήνης. Ὡς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων. “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints” St. Paul I Corinthians 14:33. As the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and not Protestants, we follow the one standard set by Holy Fathers for the Catholic Church in the jurisdiction of Apostolic succession.
    https://www.monomakhos.com/doing-church-while-greek/#comment-71469
    As to the canonical basis-
    Apostolic Canons
    33. None of the foreign Bishops, or Presbyters, or Deacons shall be received without letters commendatory. Even when they bear such, they shall be examined. And if they really are preachers of piety, they shall be received; but if they are not, after furnishing them what they have need of, they shall not be admitted to communion. For many things are done with a view to rapine.

    (Ap. c. XII; cc. XI, XIII of the 4th; c. XIV of the 6th; cc. VII, VIII of Antioch; c. XLI of Laodicea; cc. XXXI, XCVII of Carthage.).

    Interpretation.

    In their c. XII the Apostles ordain that no foreign or strange clergyman be admitted by another bishop unless he is provided with letters commendatory. Accordingly, in the present Canon they are likewise ordaining this very same rule with an addition, by saying: No foreign or strange bishop, or presbyter, or deacon ought to be received by other bishops unless such bishop bears letters from his metropolitan, or such presbyter or deacon from his bishop or metropolitan, commendatory both of his faith and of his good life, and especially of his reputation if the latter has been impugned. But even if they do bear such letters commendatory on their person, they are nevertheless to be further examined as to whether they are Orthodox or not; for they may entertain mistaken beliefs, and the one who gave them the letters recommendatory may be unaware of them. But if upon examination they be found to be in reality preachers of Orthodoxy and of piety, then let them be received and admitted to communion (but let them not also be allowed to participate in the exercises of any church in that vicinity and perform the functions of holy orders without having with them in addition to letters commendatory also a letter of dismissal indicating that they have permission to conduct services where they are going, in accordance with c. XVII of the 6th. If, on the other hand, they be found to be cacodoxical and heretical, do not communicate with them, it says, but give them whatever they need in the way of necessities, and send them packing; for many unseemly effects result from such strangers in the nature of rapine for failure to conduct a proper investigation of them. See also the footnote to Ap. c. XII.

    34. It behoves the Bishops of every nation to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognise him as their head, and to refrain from doing anything superfluous without his advice and approval: but, instead, each of them should do only whatever is necessitated by his own parish and by the territories under him. But let not even such a one do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all. For thus will there be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

    (cc. VI, VII of the 1st; cc. II, III of the 2nd; c. VIII of the 3rd; o. XXVIII of the 4th; cc. XXXVI, XXXIX of the 6th; c. IX of Antioch.).

    Interpretation.

    Just as, when the head is unwell and fails to function properly, the other members of the body also are ill disposed or even utterly useless, so and in like manner it may be said that if the one acting as head in the Church does not honor her fitly, all the rest of the body of the Church will be out of order and unable to function. It is for this reason that the present Canon ordains that all bishops of every province ought to know who is the chief among them, i.e., the metropolitan; and ought to regard him as their head, and not to do anything unnecessary without consulting him, as respecting, that is to say, anything that does not pertain to the parishes of their bishoprics, but, extending beyond these limits, have to do with the common condition of the whole province, as, for instance, do questions concerning the dogmas, matters involving adjustments and corrections of common mistakes, the installation and ordination of prelates, and other similar things. Instead, they are to meet with the metropolitan and confer with him in regard to such common matters, and decide in common on what appears to them the best thing to be done. Each of the bishops should do by himself, without consulting his metropolitan, only those things that are confined to the limits and boundaries of his bishopric and to the territories that are subject thereto. But just as bishops should do nothing of common interest without consulting the metropolitan, so and in like manner a metropolitan ought not to do anything of such common interest alone and by himself without consulting all his bishops. For in this way there will be concord and love, both between bishops and metropolitans and between clergymen and laymen. The outcome of this concord and love will be that God the Father will be glorified through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who acquainted men with the name of His Father and laid down the law requiring love, when He said: “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one for another” (John 13:35). And He will be glorified in His Holy Spirit, which through Its grace has united us in one spiritual association. That is the same as saying that as a result of this concord the Holy Trinity — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — will be glorified, in accordance with the voice of the Gospel which says: “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and may glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16).

    Concord.

    Almost identically the same things are seen to be ordained also in c. IX of Antioch. That is why c. VI of the First Ecumenical Council commands that the ancient customs are to hold; those, that is to say, which had been prevalent in accordance with this Ap. c.; so that the patriarch of Alexandria had control of affairs in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, since such was also the custom in connection with the patriarch of Rome too. Likewise the patriarch of Antioch had control of his own provinces; and, in general, the same privileges were preserved to every Church and Metropolis, so that every metropolitan should have control over the provinces subject to him. Canon VII of the same Council ordains that the patriarch of Aelia, i.e., of Jerusalem, is to have the observance of the ancient honor and the dignity of his own Metropolis, Canon III of the 2nd commands that the patriarch of Constantinople is to have the highest honor. Canon VIII of the 3rd, too, demands that the rights belonging to each province be free from constraint and impurity again even as in the beginning, according to the old custom, and especially as respects those of Cyprus. In addition, c. XXXIX of the 6th confirms the same c. VIII of the 3rd.

    35. A Bishop shall not dare to confer ordinations outside of his own boundaries, in cities and, territories not subject to him. If he be proved to have done so against the wishes of those having possession of those cities or territories, let him be deposed, as well as those whom he ordained.

    (c. II of the 2nd; c. VIII of the 3rd; c. XX of the 6th; cc. XIII, XXII of Antioch; cc. Ill, XI, XII of’the Sardican.).

    Interpretation.

    This Canon too was ordained for the concord and good order of bishops and metropolitans. It says in effect that a bishop ought not to dare to confer ordinations outside of the boundaries of his bishopric, or to perform any other ecclesiastical function in those cities and countries that are not within his own territory (but neither has a metropolitan the liberty to go into the parishes of his bishops and perform ordinations or any other prelatical ceremony). Only then has he the liberty to perform such functions, when he has been invited by the bishop of the region in question. If, nevertheless, it transpire that he did this without the consent and permission of the bishops who control those cities and territories, let him be deposed who ordained men beyond his boundaries, together with those whom he ordained. For in such a case it would appear that there were two bishops in one and the same place, or two metropolitans, which is unlawful and prohibited by c. VIII of the 1st, and by c. XII of the 4th.

    Hence, in its c. XX the Sixth Ecum. C. ordains that whoever goes to a strange bishopric and publicly teaches on his own account and of his own accord, without the local bishop’s permission, shall lose his position in the prelacy and shall be allowed to perform only the functions of a presbyter. Perhaps for no other purpose was this provision made than that of preventing the occurrence of this absurd anomaly, to wit, that of having two bishops at the same time in the same bishopric, one wanting this and the other that, which he dared to do. For if that was not the purpose that this council had in mind, why should it degrade the bishop to the rank of a presbyter, at a time when this degradation amounts to sacrilege, according to c. XXIX of the 4th? Besides, if a bishop teaching beyond his boundaries is unworthy, he ought to be unworthy also of the presbytery; but if he is worthy of the presbytery, why should he not be worthy also of the episcopate? So it is apparent that the reason why it reduces him to the rank of a presbyter is to leave one bishop again in one bishopric, and not two. For he sinned immediately against the episcopal office by causing two bishops to be in the same bishopric, on which account he is deposed therefrom; he did not sin, however, against the office of presbyter, since two or more presbyters are not prohibited from being in the same bishopric, wherefore neither is he deposed therefrom (although Zonaras and Balsamon say that anyone that teaches publicly contrary to the will of the local bishop is on this account reduced to the rank of presbyter, in order to humble him, on the ground that he became vainglorious and exalted himself). Hence sacred Photius (Title IX, ch. 11), to do away with the apparent contradiction of the canons — that is, of c. XXIX of the 4th and c. XX of the 6th -, proposed c. VIII of the 1st. Nevertheless, even when it comes to performing the office of a presbyter, a bishop from beyond the boundaries must obtain the permission and consent of the local bishop. If he does not have such permission, he cannot exercise the function; he simply has the standing of a laymen in that case as long as he remains in that foreign region, according to the canons. In order to sum up the entirety of the present Apostolical Canon, we may say thus: A bishop who performs a prelatical service in a strange bishopric, with the consent of the bishop thereof, is not performing it with the power and operation of his own episcopate (for in that case there would be two bishops in one bishopric as though possessing two distinct and separate powers and faculties); but, on the contrary, solely with the episcopal power and faculty of the local bishop (for in this case the two bishops are regarded as one bishop). And if this be so, as indeed it is, anyone that performs a prelatical function against the will of the local bishop, is deposed even from his own episcopal power, which, without possessing it, on the score of his being beyond his boundaries, he exercised; as well as from the strange episcopal power of the local bishop, which he might have possessed with the consent and permission of the latter, but which he stole and appropriated as his own.

    Concord.

    The same things are ordained also by c. II of the 2nd, wherein the latter prohibits anyone (whether a patriarch or a metropolitan) from meddling in other dioceses beyond his boundaries in order to perform ordinations or to execute other ecclesiastical accomodations. But still more is that true of c. VIII of the 3rd, which ordains that the bishop of Antioch shall not have authority to carry out ordinations in Cyprus, beyond the boundaries of that diocese, which, it says, is contrary to the Apostolical Canons, meaning the present one. Both c. XIII and c. XXIV of Antioch agree in ordaining that no bishop shall dare to meddle in a foreign province and perform any ordinations therein, except only in case he goes there provided with letters of the bishop inviting him; if he do so under contrary circumstances, the ordinations and all other services he may perform shall remain void and invalid. If, however, it so happen that one bishop has lands, say, and substantial property in the province of another bishop, c. XII of the Sardican allows him to go there in order to gather produce, and for three weeks’ duration to attend church in the church that is in the vicinity of his property, but not to go any closer to the city in which the bishop is. That a bishop may not even teach in territory beyond his own boundaries without the consent of the local bishop is stated in c. XX of the 6th above and in c. XI of the Sardican. Canon III of the Sardican, in fact, not only prohibits this, but does not even allow a bishop to go to the province of another bishop without being invited.

    Constantinople I
    2. Bishops must not leave their own diocese and go over to churches beyond its boundaries; but, on the contrary, in accordance with the Canons, let the Bishop of Alexandria administer the affairs of Egypt only, let the Bishops of the East govern the Eastern Church only, the priorities granted to the church of the Antiochians in the Nicene Canons being kept inviolate, and let the Bishops of the Asian diocese (or administrative domain) administer only the affairs of the Asian church, and let those of the Pontic diocese look after the affairs of the diocese of Pontus only, and let those of the Thracian diocese manage the affairs of the Thracian diocese only. Let Bishops not go beyond their own province to carry out an ordination or any other ecclesiastical services unless (officially) summoned thither. When the Canon prescribed in regard to dioceses (or administrative provinces) is duly kept, it is evident that the synod of each province will confine itself to the affairs of that particular province, in accordance with the regulations decreed in Nicaea. But the churches of God that are situated in territories belonging to barbarian nations must be administered in accordance with the customary practice of the Fathers.

    (Ap. cc. XXXIV, XXXV; cc. VI, VII of the 1st; c. VIII of the 3rd; c. XXVIII of the 4th; cc. XX, XXX, XXXIX of the 6th; c. IX of Antioch; cc. III, XI, and XII of Sardica.)

    Interpretation.

    Since, as is attested by Socrates (Book 5, ch. 8), officiation beyond the boundaries of one’s own diocese was formerly a matter of indifference on account of persecutions, and, as Theodoret says, blessed Eusebius of Samosata did it as a matter of extraordinary zeal. On this account, when peace reappeared in the Church as a whole, the present Canon was adopted and promulgated. It relates neither to autocephalous Metropolitans alone, as Balsamon interpreted it, nor to Patriarchs alone, but to both these classes of dignitaries alike, according to Dositheus (p. 233 of “Those who have served as Patriarchs”), in order that each of them may serve his own province and diocese, and not interfere in one that is alien, and not confound the rights of the churches; but, on the contrary, in accordance with the Canons (cc. VI and VII, that is to say of the First, and much more in accordance with Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV), that the bishop of Alexandria may manage only the parishes in Egypt (the Council expressly mentioned the bishop of Alexandria because the Bishop of Alexandria with his party cooperated to have Maximus the Cynic ordained in Constantinople, while, on the other hand, great St. Gregory was ousted from office in spite of its being his diocese and parish). The metropolitans of the East are to attend to the affairs of the East, with the proviso that the prerogatives of the bishop of Antioch be duly respected, in accordance with the Canon (sc. VI) of the Nicene Council; and the metropolitans of the Asian, Pontic and Thracian domains are to manage only the provinces belonging to them (these dignitaries, according to c. XXVIII of the 4th, have to be ordained after the bishop of Constantinople). It commands, in addition, that both patriarchs and metropolitans alike refrain from interloping beyond their own dioceses and provinces with the object of ordaining others or performing other ecclesiastical services in the parishes of others, without being invited to do so; and that the synod of each particular province shall manage the ecclesiastical matters of each province of the metropolitans, whether they be elections, or ordinations, or penances, or absolutions, or any other such matters; likewise, as regarding the affairs of each diocese of the patriarchs, the diocesan synod shall govern such matters of the diocese in question, as the Nicene Council has decreed (c. VI). For the same thing is involved in the decree of the Nicene Council that no bishop shall be ordained without the consent of the metropolitan, and in which the present Council says to the effect that the synod of each province (of the metropolitan, that is to say) shall govern the affairs of each province, respectively. As for the churches of God that are situated in the midst of barbarian nations, where there either were not enough bishops to make up a synod, or it was necessary for some scholarly bishop to go there in order to bolster up the Christians in their faith. These churches, I say, ought to be managed in accordance with the prevailing custom of the Fathers. To be more explicit, neighboring and abler bishops ought to go to them, in order to supply what is missing for a local synod. Which, though contrary to Canons, yet as a matter of necessity was allowed by the Council. Read Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV, and c. I of the Sixth.

    Ephesus
    8. Our fellow Bishop Reginus, most beloved by God, and with him the most God-beloved Bishops of the province of the Cypriotes Zeno and Evagrius, has announced an innovation, a thing which is contrary to the ecclesiastical laws and the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and one which touches the freedom of all. Hence, since common ailments require more drastic treatment, on the ground that they do greater damage, and especially in view of the fact that the Bishop of Antioch, far from following the ancient custom, has been performing the ordinations in Cyprus, according to information given in libelli and by oral statements made by most pious gentlemen who have approached the Holy Council; therefore those who preside over the churches in Cyprus shall retain their privilege unaffected and inviolate, according to the Canons of the Holy Fathers and ancient custom, whereby they shall themselves perform the ordinations of the most reverent Bishops. The same rule shall hold good also with regard to the other diocese and churches everywhere, so that none of the Bishops most beloved by God shall take hold of any other province that was not formerly and from the beginning in his jurisdiction, or was not, that is to say, held by his predecessors. But if anyone has taken possession of any and has forcibly subjected it to his authority, he shall regive it back to its rightful possessor, in order that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed, nor the secular fastus be introduced, under the pretext of divine services; lest imperceptibly and little by little we lose the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Liberator of all men, has given us as a free gift by His own blood. It has therefore seemed best to the holy and Ecumenical Council that the rights of every province, formerly and from the beginning belonging to it, be preserved clear and inviolable, in accordance with the custom which prevailed of yore; each Metropolitan having permission to take copies of the proceedings for his own security. If, on the other hand, anyone introduce any form conflicting with the decrees which have now been sanctioned, it has seemed best to the entire holy and Ecumenical Council that it be invalid and of no effect.79

    78(Ap. c. XXXV; c. II of the 2nd; c. XX of the 6th; cc. XIII, XXII of Antioch; cc. III, IX, XII of Sardica).

    79(Ap. c. XXXIV; cc. VI, VII of the 1st; c. XX of the 2nd; cc. XXXVI, XXXIX of the 6th; c. IX of Antioch.)

    Interpretation.

    Inasmuch as Cyprus, so far as concerned secular administration, was subject to the Duke of Antioch, and was wont to send it an army commander (or general), it came to pass that the Bishop of Antioch, in imitation of this secular and civil form and law, undertook to show authority over that same Cyprus, with regard to both the religious and the ecclesiastical administration, by ordaining the bishops in Cyprus extra-territorially and not as a matter of ancient custom. This, however, was a thing that was contrary to Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV. After receiving Archbishop Reginus of Constantia, which used to be called Salamis but is now known as Amochostos, and the bishops accompanying, namely, Zeno of Cyrene, and Evagrius of Solon, who in writing as well as viva voce reported these facts, the Council decrees by the present Canon that, in accordance with the Canons and in accordance with ancient custom,78 the Metropolitans of Cyprus are themselves to ordain the bishops in Cyprus, and to be left unmolested and unconstrained by anyone else. But, making the Canon general and catholic, the Fathers of this Council add that this same rule shall hold also in regard to diocese (or administrations) and provinces everywhere else, to the end that no bishop be permitted to usurp and appropriate any other province that has not formerly and from the beginning been subject either to his authority or to that of his predecessors. If, nevertheless, anyone should appropriate it forcibly, he must return it, in order that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed, and in order that prelates, under the pretext of sacerdotalism, may not cloak a secret ambition and vainglorious yearning for secular or worldly authority, and hence becoming slaves to injustice lose little by little the freedom which the liberator of all men Jesus Christ has graciously given us with His own blood; it has appeared reasonable to this holy Ecumenical Council that the righteous and just privileges be kept clear and inviolable which formerly and from the beginning as a matter of ancient custom each province has been entitled to. Accordingly, each Metropolitan shall have permission to receive a transcript of the present Canon for security and confirmation of the privileges of his metropolis. If, on the other hand, anyone should come out with a form, i.e., a civil law or royal decree, contrary to the present Canon, it has appeared reasonable to all this holy Council for that civil law to remain invalid and ineffective. Read also the Interpretations of Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV.

    Chalcedon
    17. As touching rural parishes, or country parishes, in any province, they shall remain in the undisputed possession of the bishops now holding them, and especially if they have held them in their possession and have managed them without coercion for thirty years or more. But if during a period of thirty years there has arisen or should arise some dispute concerning them, those claiming to have been unjustly treated shall be permitted to complain to the Synod of the province. But if anyone has been unjustly treated by his own Metropolitan, let him complain to the Exarch of the diocese, or let him have his case tried before the throne of Constantinople, according as he may choose. If, on the other hand, any city has been rebuilt by imperial authority, or has been built anew again, pursuant to civil and public formalities, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes be followed.

    (Ap. c. LXXIV; c. VI of the 1st; cc. IX, XXI of the 4th; cc. XIV, XV of Antioch; cc. VIII, XII, XIV, XV, XVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXXVI, LXXXVII, XCVI, CV, CXV, CXVIII, CXXVIII, CXXIX, CXXX, CXXXVII, CXXXVIII, and CXXXIX; cc. XXV and XXXVIII of the 6th.)

    Interpretation.

    Rural parishes are small parishes which are situated in outlying and distant parts of the country, and being inhabited by few human beings they used to be called monoecia (which word meant, in Greek, “lone habitations”). Country parishes, on the other hand, are parishes which were near cultivated fields and villages, and had a greater number of inhabitants. So it is these parishes in every province that the present Canon commands to remain inalienable and indetachable from the bishops to whom they belong, and especially if they have belonged to them and been under their authority for as many as thirty years in good faith and without coercion, that is to say, without their being forced to submit to it and without their being grabbed up on an unjust or unfair pretext. But if during the course of the thirty years there had arisen any dispute concerning them, or if after the enactment of the present Canon there should arise any dispute concerning them, those who claim to have been unjustly treated in regard thereto are given permission to have their dispute considered by the Synod of the province. If, again, anyone should claim to have been unjustly treated in regard thereto by his Metropolitan, let him refer his case to the Exarch and chief head of the diocese (whose function, however, was abolished or fell into desuetude after this Fourth Ec. C. was held, as we said in Footnote to c. IX of the present C.), or to the Bishop of Constantinople, as previously stated. If, on the other hand, there has heretofore been built any city by imperial authority, or if any be so built hereafter, then the neighboring bishop shall not try to subject it to his own authority and claim it as a parish of his own, since the order of the parishes of that church have to follow the civil laws and ordinances which may be decreed by the emperor in regard to the newly-built city, not vice versa.

    Note that, after dividing this Canon into two sections, the Sixth Ec. C. incorporated in its own c. XXV that part of this present canon which ends with the words “complain to the Synod of the province,” while it incorporates the words following these to the end in its own c. XXXVIII. Note also that c.CXXIX of Carthage prescribes that if any bishop succeeds in converting any region of heretics to Orthodoxy and holding it for three years straight, without its being reclaimed by the one who ought to have reclaimed it, it shall no longer be subject to being reclaimed by him. The same Council’s c. CXXVIII declares that heretics converted to the catholic unity shall be subject to that throne to which the catholic union of Orthodox Christians situated therein had been subject of old. In addition, c. CXXX says that in case anyone deems any laity belonging to another to be wrongly held by him and appropriates it as his own, not by virtue of letters of the bishop possessing it, or at the request of the Council or Synod, but by despotism and assault, he shall lose that laity, even though it really were his, and even though he assert that he had letters from the chief head. Read also the Interpretations of Ap. c. LXXIV, of c. VI of the First Ec. C., and c. IX of the present Fourth Ec. C.
    http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_ecumenical_rudder.htm

    • Isa Almisry says

      The consecration of St. Raphael Hawaweeny by Bp (later Pat.) St. Tikhon on March 13/1 1904 terminates any claims, per canon 8 of the Fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, to jurisdiction in the Americas, North America, and the US.
      http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/07/10/st-raphaels-consecration/
      “none of the Bishops most beloved by God shall take hold of any other province that was not formerly and from the beginning in his jurisdiction, or was not, that is to say, held by his predecessors. But…has taken possession of any and has forcibly subjected it to his authority, he shall regive it back to its rightful possessor, in order that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed”
      As Canon 8 points out, consecration of bishops is a jurisdictional act, canonical only if performed by those, per Apostolic Canon 34, who “shall retain their privilege unaffected and inviolate, according to the Canons of the Holy Fathers and ancient custom, whereby they shall themselves perform the ordinations of the most reverent Bishops. ” Bp. Tikhon, per Apostolic Canon 34, recognized the Most Holy Governing Synod of the Church of Russia.
      The same authority that the US President and Senate recognized by signing and approving the Alaska Cession Treaty in 1867.
      The same authority that the British Crown in Canada recognized in 1903.
      The same authority now consecrating the head of the Syrians organizing in Mexico.

      As St. Tikhon bore the title of “Bishop of the Aleutians and North America,” then “It behove[d] the Bishops [the consecrators Tikhon and Bp. Innocent of Alaska and the new bishop Raphael of Brooklyn-all in America] of every nation [in North America] to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognise him as their head, and to refrain from doing anything superfluous without his advice and approval: but, instead, each of them should do only whatever is necessitated by his own parish and by the territories under him [in North America].” IOW this first consecration of a bishop in the Americas stands as the terminus ante quem as to the jurisdiction of the Americas. That disqualifies the Phanar’s Tomos of 1908 and the related canon 28 mythology-both of which disqualify the New Orleans parish-except to serve as a basis to lodge a dispute according to canon 17 of the Fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. That resolves, however, on what went on before, not after, 1904, and it has the problem that the Russian Church always exercised jurisdiction over North America-even planing to set up a bishoprick in New Orleans in 1870, when the primate was translated to SF, CA, USA:

      On July 19, 1870, a Philadelphia newspaper called the North American and United States Gazette published the following report: The Russian Ambassador has received instructions from his government that three bishoprics of the Greek Church are to be established forthwith in this country – one at New York, one at New Orleans, and one at San Francisco, in each of which last named places there is already a Greek church and a Russo-Greek priest.
      A few days later, the journal Christian Union (7/23/1870) reported on the move of the Russian bishop from Alaska to San Francisco, and on the founding of Bjerring’s chapel in New York City. Citing the Pacific Churchman as its source, the article then stated the following: New York is expected to be, in time, the seat of a Greek Orthodox Eastern Church arch-diocesan, and of the cathedral church of that hierarchy on the American continent, while New Orleans and San Francisco are to be episcopal seats…..Finally, in October, a correction of sorts began to appear. From the Christian Advocate (10/10/1870; the same appeared in the San Francisco Bulletin on October 29): “The Russian Government does not contemplate sending Bishops of the Greek Church to form dioceses in this country. Greek Church communicants are too few to require them, and these few, it seems, do not desire foreign Bishops.”

      http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/10/30/three-bishops-for-america-in-1870/
      So the Russian Church made do with the local bishop on the West Coast, and a metochian of sorts under the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg: there was opposition from the Episcopalians, who claimed the status as the “Western Orthodox”. The Russian Church had to deal with that, not a counterclaim from the Phanar or the Church of Greece. For instance, this flair up in 1862-

      San Francisco Bulletin on December 6, 1862: At the General Episcopal Convention recently held in New York, Dr. Thrall, late of San Francisco, took occasion to make some interesting statements as to the Russo-Greek church here. There were, said he, in San Francisco between 300 and 400 communicants of the Russo-Greek church, some of whom had been under his pastoral charge, although not feeling free to receive the communion at his hands, owing to the unsettled relations between their church and ours. They were about to build a church of their own and become organized into a parish; and before long there might be appointed a Bishop of the Russo-Greek church, who would claim jurisdiction and thus bring about a conflict with the [Episcopalian] Bishop of California. This ought to force upon the Convention the consideration of that great question — one of the greatest of questions — the establishment of full ecclesiastical relations with the Russo-Greek church.

      http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/11/10/episcopalians-orthodox-claims-in-america-1862/
      (as I posted here, and in the comments to the link above, the Episcopalians first considered receiving orders from the Orthodox bishop in Sitka-St. Innocent). On the status of the NY parish as a metochian
      http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/11/10/episcopalians-orthodox-claims-in-america-1862/
      but with the real status: from “Appletons a̕nnual cyclopædia and register of important events of the year 1866″:

      The number of churches built with the aid of the Russian Government for the Russian residents in foreign countries, is to be increased by one in New York. It was reported that $2,000 have been subscribed by Russian and Greek residents in that city. The $18,000 which are wanting will bo provided by tho government, who are also to find the salaries of the officiating priests, and defray the entire expenditure of the establishment. To free the members of this clerical mission from the restraints incidental to an official capacity, it is proposed not to place them under the exclusive control of tho Russian Ambassador at Washington [Note: NY law from 1871 required any Orthodox Church to name the Russian Ambassador and Consul as trustees). Divine service in the new church will be conducted in Greek and Russian.

      But they would be conducted under a Russian bishop, and the Holy Governing Synod, under which came both the bishop in SF and the chapel in NYC and everywhere in between. But, as I posted before, the Czar and his Church didn’t forget the chapel in New Orleans, as shown by the account of the Grand Duke’s visit in 1872:

      The Committee of the congregation of St. Trinity (Greek) Church, consisting of Messrs. A. Cietcovich, D. Agapitos, N. Killilis, Dr. Ulrich, and P. Benachi, appointed as a Greek and Russian delegation to wait upon His Highness, were next introduced into the sitting-room of the Grand Duke. After a short delay, the latter appeared, whereupon Mr. M. N. Benachi introduced the Committee to him. Mr. Benachi took occasion to add a few remarks on their behalf, praying His Highness to thank his mother, the Empress of Russia, for the kind solicitude she had manifested for their Church, and the rich presents which she had bestowed upon the tiny edifice, situated on Dorgenois Street, near the corner of Ursulines; and also to express to the Empress the wishes of the Greek and Russian congregation of New Orleans for the welfare and prosperity of the Imperial family of Russia. The Grand Duke addressed each member of the delegation, inquiring into details appertaining to their congregation and their little church.

      http://books.google.com/books?id=YRmn-_vXZ58C&pg=PA217&dq=%22the+Empress+of+Russia,+for+the+kind+solicitude+she+had+manifested+for+their+Church%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=c7gTU9WbMNL82gXw8IDQCg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20Empress%20of%20Russia%2C%20for%20the%20kind%20solicitude%20she%20had%20manifested%20for%20their%20Church%22&f=false
      Btw, the Russians were in New Orleans at least from the 1830’s, when the Church of Greece of Consul Benachi was not in canonical communion.

      So, where is the canonical basis of the Greek claim to anywhere in North America?

    • Isa Almisry says

      “However, the ecumenical Patriarch disagrees with you.”
      He did when he went to Florence too. Guess whose side was vindicated.

      “I particularly like this line: “wherever there is a Russian, there too the jurisdiction of the Russian Church extends.” Nice.”
      Not as nice as his inability to cite a single Russian hierarch saying it. Just Phanariot projection.

      “We enforce the canons we want and do not enforce or recognize those we don’t want.”
      Sorry, you’ve wandered into Protestantism.

    • Isa Almisry says

      “So what shall we do now boys and girls? Let’s keep fighting because the Atheists and Secularists are on one side and the Muslims are on the others and they will just squash us in the middle.”
      Sacrificing Orthodoxy for defense didn’t work in 1439, it won’t work today.

      • Peter A. Papoutsis says

        Sacrificing the Gospel for your version of Orthodoxy won’t win either. Let go of your hatred of Greeks Isa. What will it profit you to sacrifice all to win an argument but lose the love of Christ.

        Peter

    • Isa Almisry says

      The discussion went on here as well:
      http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,55891.msg1061149.html#msg1061149

      Btw, Greek =/= Phanariot. One chooses to take up that unholy cause: or do you think our host less a Greek because he refuses to take it up and sacrifice the Gospel for that version of “Orthodoxy”?

    • Hegumen Ambrose says

      “ubi russicus ibi ecclesia russicae”
      Literal translation: “where there is a Russian male, there be also the church of a Russian female”. Quite appropriate for a treatise on the dangers of an interfaith marriage, but a serious blunder in a public ecclesiological document!
      Metropolitan Elpidophoros managed to stress at least one point: a hierarch should not attempt irony in a language that he does not master. All the more so when this language has nominative and genitive cases, just as His Eminence’s native tongue.

      • Isa Almisry says

        LOL.
        The mistake is repeated in the Greek (I have a feeling that isn’t the original language), the Russian and the Ukrainian (that one is no doubt to poke the Russian bear in the eye). Which makes no sense, as the Greek Church has never used Latin and the Russian Church hasn’t used it for a century.

      • Monk James says

        This post is meaningless without a context.

        Perhaps Hegoumen Ambrose would write us again with some background?

        • Hegumen Ambrose says

          Sure, Father James: it’s just a passing reference to the document “First Without Equals”, where Metr. Elpidophoros uses bad Latin (even in the Greek version) when trying to ironically explain a purported principle of Russian etnophyletism. I think you will agree with me that “ecclesia russicae” is as poor Latin as a first year student could achieve.
          Please keep me in your prayers, as much as you are always remembered here in Italy.
          heg. Ambrose – Turin

          • Monk James says

            P. Ambrogio — Mille grazie per rispondere a me. Ma, che bello incontrarti qui — non sapevo che eri tu scribendo! Siamo sempre insieme in preghiera.

            • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

              Il solo principio motore dell’ uomo e il dolore. Il dolore precede ogni piacers, non e essere positivo.

              Too bad. You know Greeks, especially Uniates over the centuries, have sometimes managed Latin quite well, even though they are also almost the only tribe that ostensibly detests it. They like to claim it somehow defiles theology, hence, the Tradition. Compared to what Greek did to Aramaic, Latin’s influences were almost admirable!

              • Monk James says

                As a student of language, especially the language we need to express the tradition of The Church, I regret to say that Bp Tikhon’s statement here is one of the most aggressively ignorant opinions I’ve ever observed.

                May the Lord grant him and all of us the wisdom to use what we know well and to His glory rather than our own..

            • Hegumen Ambrose says

              You are welcome, Father. And appreciated, too! Your Meditations on the Holy Week have been a very useful pastoral tool to have the Orthodox people in Italy get acquainted with the depths of those most important days of prayer.

              • Monk James says

                Thanks again, dear Father Ambrose.

                I’m working on a revision of those meditations, first offered decades ago. There are things I’ve learned since I first sent them out, and I’d like them to be the best they can be.

                I’ll write again n English, so you won’t have to worry about correcting errors in my rusty Italian!

    • Alexander says

      To quote and paraphrase the defendant’s brief opening statement in the best lawyer movie ever, My Cousin Vinny, “Everything [Elpidophoros] said is bulls**t. Thank you Your Honor.”

    • Michael Woerl says

      The partnership between Rome and the Phanar, that little Greek neighborhood in Istanbul, to proclaim the “Dual Primacy” of each to the Orthodox, is extremely sad. What is quizzical in all this is that if the “much desired” New Unia with Rome becomes a reality, won’t Primate Number Two simply become the Primate of the Byzantine Rite, with a seemingly ever decreasing-from that point-“Primacy?” Its amazing what these people come up with to bolster their political fantasies. From the False Council of Florence, to Meletios Metaxakis attempts to bring the British in to crush Turkey in the early 20s by union fever towards the Anglicans, to the New Unia with Rome, “required participation, or you’re in isolation.” All, of course, 100% on the “theological and canonical up and up.” Yup. Some things, apparently, never change. Enjoy the New Unia! Sorry, a lot of us won’t be experiencing it with you!

      • George Michalopulos says

        Michael, thank you for pointing out that it’s always been the case that in any Unia, Rome always comes out on top. The Phanar’s fantasies aside, Rome still would have to repudiate the Filioque.

        The older I get, the more I see the wisdom of modern fathers such as St Justin Popovich. Like Booker T Washington advised freed blacks: let us put down our pails where we are and build up from there.

        The EP needs to concentrate on evangelizing and that includes the re-evangelization of the peoples in its See. Materialism and secularism have done much to erode the foundations of faith in the GOA.

        • Tom Kanelos says

          What in the world ever gave you or any others here the idea that the EP would relent on the issue of the filioque or any other matter of doctrine. This is just the kind of silly anti-EP garbage that pops up in places like this. There is no basis in fact. How is the dialogue between Rome and Orthodoxy some kind of new unia? It is all nonsense by folks with little knowledge of the truth. Whatever the discussion, whatever the topic somehow it always falls back on criticism of the EP.

          In fact, aren’t the so called “Western Rite Orthodox” a form of uniatism? Aren’t they really the new unia? Where is the outrage about that?

        • Michael Bauman says

          Peter, to many the activities of the EP towards Rome look as if he is seeking some sort of unity without the two big hurdles you mention being considered. That is a common perception. Certainly that is what is communicated to many lay Catholics.

          I have a friend who used to be RC, a knowledgeable and faithful Catholic who responded to Pope JPII marching orders to network with their Orthodox friends and get them to participate in Catholic things. This was solely on the basis of what seem like a rapprochement between Rome and the EP with the EP seen as the Eastern Pope.

          At one point this got to be so irritating to me that I simply explained to her that even if the EP and the Pope agreed, it would not bring about anything but a greater schism. She stopped after that and is not, by the grace of God, Orthodox. She is Romanian Greek by ancestry BTW and excessively proud of the Greek part in a somewhat voyeuristic way, but some things you just have to live with.

          God be with you to complete your Lenten journey with fruitfulness and peace.

      • Michael Bauman says

        There is only one who has power and that is Jesus Christ and Him crucified. When we start acting in like manner, we will know Primacy and where it lies. Until then no amount of scholarship will still the endless lust of power in our hearts.

        As it stands now it is a game of Risk and who ever gets America win. Shame on us all!

        Seek ye first the Kingdom of heaven and all these things will be added unto you.

        God forgive me a sinner.

        • Michael Bauman says

          Peter, If I am not mistaken, the EP has been largely behind a great deal of the evangelical outreach in Africa as has Antioch. I know our parish helped build a temple building for a parish in Ghana that was meeting outdoors.

          The best evangelization efforts are ad hoc in my opinion at a lay level — person to person. It takes a personal commitment of one person to another to reach out, live a God-pleasing life and actively love the other person.

          There are doctors in my parish who have brought in other doctors and health care professionals. Prison workers who have evangelized other prison workers. Lawyers who have brought in lawyers. Those on the margins of the economy who have gone to great lengths in terms of time, money and personal safety to reach others and bring them to the Church.

          That is one reason why we have a year ’round inquirers class that runs on a 9-month cycle and always has 8-15 people in it. Not all decide to enter, but most do.

          The basic rule that if someone come to the Church and does not make friends with someone right away, they likelihood of them staying is greatly reduced.

          If we concentrate on loving God first, then the evangelism will be so effervescent and contagious, we won’t need a plan. Transformed lives are contagious.

          All of the BS about who has jurisdiction and ‘foreign bishops’ and ‘self-rule’ and, and, and does not resonate with love, mercy and grace.

          Now, to be sure, life in many parishes does resonate with love, mercy and grace.

          Once someone is in the door, we need to do what we can to make sure they continue to be welcome, get their questions answered and their expectations handled. That is where we need to have something more or less organized (which just dawned on my as I was writing). But that is going to be unique in each parish.

          I still think the best thing to do as far as all the other stuff is to shanghai all of the bishops and lock them in a monastery together and don’t let them out until they have agreed on something. But then, I’m twisted.

          God forgive me for my pride.

          • Michael Bauman says

            Yes Peter, but to paraphrase an old Cosby, Stills and Nash: If you can’t be in the land you love, love the land your in.

            Until America is love just to love her, not for her wealth or power, evangelization will not take off.

      • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

        Well, Peter, the little Grecian neighborhood in Istanbul is home to the Constantinopolitan Patriarch. The Constantinopolitan Patriarch owns the primacy of Prestige amongst the heads of the other Local Churches and, as you intimate, Prestige is very very very important. And while there is no longer an East Roman Emperor or a Turkish Sultan to support that prestige with FORCE, it hangs on to that Primacy of Presiige which is supported today mainly by cash, but also by the Greek Foreign Office and, when practical, Turkey’s state departments. Further, the “historic Patriarchate” is, like the towers of Galata and the Agia Sophia museum and the Big Mosque, a wonderful part of Turkey’s tourist industry.
        It seems obvious to me and many others, however, that the Church of Russia is in first place AS CHURCH in the world of Orthodoxy, though not of traditional protocol. The Phanar hangs on tenaciously to that protocol. I don’t think anyone wants to take away Constantinople’s primacy of Prestige—nothing in the whole world is more important to it than that. Even the Russian government, therefore also the Russian Church, is not pursuing such an unworthy goal (from their point of view).
        .

        • Peter A. Papoutsis says

          It actually has more ties with the U.S State Department, and the backing of the U.S. Government. Much of what the EP does is actually coordinated and supported by the U.S.

          The same goes for Antioch via the Patriarchate in Antioch and the Office of Metropolitan. Both Constantinople and Antioch have had and continue to have the support and backing of the U.S.

          Good night and God Bless.

  4. Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

    I remember one of the GOA Bishops at Ligonier (Possibly Methodios) telling us all that ‘”some of us spend too much time saying that since we were here first we have canonical rights which others do not.
    Who was here first is NOT the question or decisive.’
    Now, I find this sudden, almost hysterical insistence by the other ‘some of us’ that since they think they were first, it is decisive! It’s not Greek Orthodox in Louisiana, nor Greek Uniates in Florida, but the canononical ‘One bishop in one city” which gives precedence to the arrival of the first bishop here. The first bishop, hence first diocese here in the U.S.A. was Russian. Greek bishops came much later and spent a lot of energy banning English, even into the 1960s, as if to say, we are NOT Americans and don’t want to be anything but Greek. Bishop Ezekiel of Chicago directed that at a Pan-Orthodox Vespers any language could be permitted in the Litanies EXCEPT English. Father Dimitri Royster had to use Church Slavonic at that event in the 60s, since the Greeks refused to recognize that an American Orthodoxy even existed. The Serbs were almost as bad: ever-memorable Bishop Gregory of the Serbian Western America diocese lectured the Southern California Orthodox Clergy Council: “I know your Ireney very well. He’s not head of any American Church. It’s ridiculous, the Americans have their OWN Church, the Episcopalian Church!” Russians honored the English and Native American languages from their beginnings in North America. if “Primacy in Love” means anything, the Russians sure showed it!!

    • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

      Peter (or Panagioti-Mario) Papoutsis, I wasn’t singling out any particular group of Russian Orthodox, since they are all alike in the qualities to which I referred. I don’t know why you say the love is not showing because just the weight and number of pages of Orthodox learning, liturgy, and theology published in English for English and American people by the Russian Orthodox of OCA, ROCOR and MP is almost larger by trigonometric proportion than anything put out by the Greek Orthodox, though for a long time the latter produced the greatest number of Librettos for people sitting in pews at Greek language services. The Greeks until very recently considered allowing Americans to leave cash at the Greek Festivals was as far as outreach went…
      I’m not ashamed to say that Greeks are not a race; Russians are not a race; Chinese are not a race. In fact, i’ve always disparaged German/Nazi eugenics ideas,although my German grandparents espoused them. The Greeks of classical times no longer even exist. The last ones were expelled from Pontus ionia, etc. in the 20th centuries, while the people of the land below the Balkans were long ago so mixed up with Slavic (especially Bulgarian and Macedonian), and Italian and Spanish colonists, invaders and conquerors that it’s hardly likely much Greek DNA may be found there, according to many neutral anthropologists.
      But for the Greeks all during the time of being under the Turban, Germany was the land of learning, so it’s no wonder so much German ideology survives there. It used to be said that you could identify which German theological school was the alma mater of a given educated Priest or Bishop in Greece just by listening to him preach.
      I love people, Mario, not peoples. if you find that immoral, I respect your right to your own ideas.
      If anyone says or complains that “love is NOT showing,” I recommend looking a little more closely and carefully.

      • Peter A. Papoutsis says

        Oh my, you need a lot of prayer and love in this season of Great Lent. Take care your grace, and may God’s love surely rain upon you as we approach Pascha.

        Peter

    • Isa Almisry says

      Btw, Mr. Papoutsis (or do you prefer Peter?), the Orthodox have been here now for at least 3 generations (actually far more, especially up in Alaska, but the bulk of the immigrants you seem to be implying got here by then). Time’s up for waiting around.

      You dispute truth as a basis, but suggest nothing, except the amorphous “love”, as providing another. Care to put some meat on that bone?

      • Peter Papoutsis says

        Pete or Peter is fine. Thanks for asking. Also, I’m denying anything, I just don’t care about these things. Really I don’t. What I care about is just having an Orthodox Church with an Orthodox priest that can give my family and me communion. I don’t care about ethnicity. I’m American and my kids are goong to be more American than me. So eventually this stuff will resolve itself.

        Don’t sweat it. Listen if you ever want to talk of line get my private email from George and we can exchage numbers. I think we are both in Chicago. We’ll do lunch, maybe even invite Fr. Pat along.

        Take care bud, and we’ll talk soon.

        Peter

        • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

          What’s the “A.” for? (“Peter A. Papoutsis”)
          And don’t forget that Mario is a much better equivalent of Panagiotis than “Peter” is.
          Looking forward to a loving reply…

          • Peter A. Papoutsis says

            Alexander. It’s my father’s name. I took it to always remember him. Plus, it’s traditional in my family for sons to take their father’s name as their middle name.

            Peter

        • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

          Do you know this complete sentence got mostly thumbs-up? “Also, I’m denying anything,”
          Blessed is God.

      • Alexander says

        My children are a seventh generation of Orthodox Americans, an unbroken lineage of proud Americans in the USA since 1827 or 1829. They managed to somehow, some way, perservere with their faith. My children, my wife and I will do our best to follow in their footsteps.

        This Old World Patriarchates’ intramural squabbling over who sits where, who gets mentioned first, and their personal ATM’s is insane and will reserve each of the “Patriarchs,” “Metropolitans,” “Archbishops,” and “Most Holy Grand Poobah’s of the 79h Street Rome” advocates a special rebuke at the dread judgment seat. My mother hoped that by the time I was a grandfather this idiocy would be relegated to a bad footnote in a church history book.

        Not a grandfather yet by a long shot, but given the banality of the emisis spewing from the Istanbul Ghetto and its ecclesiastical mythology on the one end, the pedarast support system in Oyster Bay on the other, and all the greed and petty self interest within the middle of the diptych list, I’m not optimistic in the slightest.

        Planning and convening Great and Holy Councils, Synods, Synaxes, Episcopal Assemblies, Sabors, conventions, meetings, or whatevers are completely useless without love of and for the people the episcopacy is charged to shepherd.

        • Isa Almisry says

          “My children are a seventh generation of Orthodox Americans, an unbroken lineage of proud Americans in the USA since 1827 or 1829.”
          May I ask, where did they get off the boat? (or are you Alaskan native/Amerindian heritage?) And where from?

          • Originally, my ancestors arrived in the US from lands of what was at that time the Austro-Hungarian Empire, landing variously at the ports of New Orleans and San Francisco. When the economic times were “good,” they lived and worked in Montana, coastal Oregon, and we believe that some, based on familial lore, in Kansas. When times were “bad,” some would travel to their ancestral lands for a year or two, and then re-join (or bring) their new or old spouses and/or children stateside. They did this fairly regularly. In some instances, families were separated for years at a time. Subsequent travels took young and old alike through New York.

            My great-grandparents eventually settled in Missouri near, and for a time being with, other relatives who had been there for quite a while. My mother (b. 1927) would proudly tell anyone who would listen that one of her great-grandfathers voted — even more proudly — for Abraham Lincoln — twice.

            If we were slaves of African origin, the Port of New Orleans archives would be a treasure trove. But, as of the last time I checked, the records at New Orleans and San Franscisco are still being digitally processed. Even with technological advances and digital search engines, confirming identiies and arrival dates on the ship manifests challenging. When traveling on US passports, it is straightforward because the manifests were sometimes typed. But traveling with Austrian or Ottoman papers proved a tough translation — and transcription — for the immigration authorities.

            To be sure, maintianing their Orthodoxy was not simple. Some would return to their ancestral homes with infants and toddlers for chrismation. One child born in Missouri in right at the turn of the century, for example, of necessity was baptized in the Roman Church as there was no Orthodox priest to be found, but then chrismated as a two year old in the “Old Country.”

  5. Synaxis of the First-Hierarchs of the Orthodox Churches begins at Ecumenical Patriarchate

  6. Isa Almisry says

    “First, the Russian Orthodox Church, not necessarily OCA”
    yes, per the Tomos of Autocephaly issued on the authority of the Russian Orthodox Church by her Patriarch and Holy Synod, and the jurisdiction and solicitude of the OCA exercised as the unbroken continuation of the parish in question in its Cathedral See of SF-and the verdict of history-necessarily the OCA.
    “was NOT formed in America”
    http://www.netstate.com/states/quarters/images/hi_qtr.gif
    Is the US government in the habit of putting foreigners-especially foreign kings-on its coinage (btw, this is the first time a King has appeared on US coins since George III)?

    “Whereas the Greek Orthodox Church in Louisiana was formed in a U.S. Territory.”
    The Russian Orthodox Church was in CA when it became a US territory then state. You’re the one who made a distinction between states and territories, not I. I just applied consistency.

    “Further under the U.S. Constitution….California did not become a state until 1850! The Greek Orthodox Church was up and running in Louisiana in 1860”
    You cited a date of 1909 for the incorporation of the parish. Until then, it has no legal status in the US, nor any recognition.

    § 102. The only religious societies recognized in law, are those which are incorporated, and thereby become bodies corporate, by special charters, or under the general incorporating act of a State.

    American Ecclesiastical Law: The Law of Religious Societies, Church and Creeds, Disturbing Religious Meetings and the law of Burial Grounds
    By Ransom Hebbard Tyler
    http://books.google.com/books?id=4nIDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA333&dq=%22Religious+Corporations+in+Louisiana%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ECIaU_nTA8ThyQHH9YHgCw&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Religious%20Corporations%20in%20Louisiana%22&f=false
    In contrast, the Russian Orthodox Mission in North America was incorporated by the Cessation Treaty, by the US Constitution Supreme Law of the Law.

    We know what canonical authority the Russian Mission was exercising.

    So then we come to the question of the authority of the New Orleans parish. As is known, not everyone was Greek

    Then in 1867 the congregation moved to its own church structure, named after the Holy Trinity. It was erected through the generosity of the philanthropist Marinos [sic — Nicolas] Benakis, who donated the lot and $500, and of Demetrios N. and John S. Botasis, cotton merchants who together contributed $1,000.

    The church was located at 1222 Dorgenois Street and for several years it became the object of generosity not only of Greeks but of Syrians, Russians, and other Slavs. In addition to Greeks, the board of trustees included one Syrian and one Slav. Notwithstanding the predominance of Greeks on the board, the minutes were written in English and for a while it served as a pan-Orthodox Church.

    http://orthodoxhistory.org/2012/01/26/early-orthodoxy-in-galveston-new-orleans/
    So is it majority vote, or the authority of Benachi as Consul of the Kingdom of Greece, that gives the New Orleans parish jurisdiction in America. In either case, according to Greek mythology, the Phanar has jurisdiction in North America per canon 28 of Chalcedon, from the year 451. So Kir Benachi would seem to have no authority for a Church-or do you have proof that the Phanar so empowered him?
    ‘Cuz we can easily show Russian solicitude for the New Orleans parish.

    “the Russian Orthodox Church, although present on North American soil did not appear in America until 1864 at the earliest or 1868 at the latest when it was incorporated.”
    The Russian Orthodox Church in North America was incorporated in America by the Senate ratification of the Cession Treaty on April 9, 1867, effected October 18/6 1867. As shown by the contemporary newspapers above and the parent thread, by 1860 the core of Orthodox from Fort Ross translated to SF had already been up and running under the former governor of Fort Ross and the present Russian Consul in SF (from 1851) and served by Orthodox clergy and under episcopal oversight for a decade-none of which the New Orleans parish had in 1860 and would not begin to have until the arrival of the Priest Stephen Andreadas AFTER the October 18/6 1867 date.
    http://orthodoxhistory.org/2012/11/28/fr-andreades-1867-new-orleans-homily/

    The Orthodox of SF formed a society December 2, 1857, which they incorporated under CA/US law September 2, 1867.

    “Also, you are using canonical estbalishment, I am preceding that by ecclesiastical establishment.”
    Unless you are a Protestant, the two come hand in hand.

    “The Church in Louisiana was formed and celebrating the divine liturgy since 1860 FOUR YEARS before the Russuian Orthodox Church in SF.”
    Not an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, the first one which is recorded in NO is Jan 6/Dec 25 1868. The imposter and fraud (not being ordained a priest) Honcharenko served the first ersatz DL in 1865.
    We have it recorded of Orthodox DL being served in the 1830’s, 1850’s, and the early 1860’s in CA.
    A century earlier, in colonial Virginia, Holy Communion was given by the Holy Governing Synod of Russia.

    “The Church is the Church if its celebravting the divine liturgy. The Greek Church in Louisiana was was doing just that from 1860 and doing it in the United States of America.”
    The “Greek” (you still haven’t specified how it is “Greek”) Church in Louisiana wasn’t doing that in until 1868 anywhere in the US. By then, the Russians had been doing it in the US for nearly two decades, and for decades before the territory became part of the US.

    “Communities formed and communities worshiping are two different things.”
    Indeed, but since the Russian (and other Orthodox) community in SF, unlike the “Greek” community in NO, were worshiping with Orthodox priests, what is your point?

    “Also, you still have a problem. This is a RUSSIAN claim NOT and OCA claim. you are going back to the old fight between ROCOR and the OCA.”
    No, the Tomos of Autocephaly and the Act of Canonical Communion settled that.

    “You are going back to the legitimacy of the Comminist Church granting independence to the OCA that it had no right to give. Why?”
    Why would the facts have to concede to your Muslim-according to your reckoning-Church?
    The Russian Church had every right to give the OCA autocephaly. The Communist yoke fell off by 1991-by which time ROCOR was erecting parishes and even diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia inside Russia. It’s been 23 years, and the Patriarchate of Moscow has shown no inclination to dispute the Tomos of Autocephaly.

    “First, after 1917 the Russian Metropolia was effectively orphaned by its mother Moscow when it fell to Communism.”
    The orphan, not the stranger, inherits from the Mother.

    “Second, the Metropolia was not in communion with any Orthodox church until 1970. Therefore, technically, its canonical status was challenged by the ROCOR.”
    The Metropolia was in communion with some, e.g. the Antiochians, and ROCOR’s canonical status was challenged by her Mother Church, among others.

    “In the 1950s the Metropolia separated from ROCOR that had ALL legitimate rights and privilieges of the The Russian Orthodox Church NOT the Metropolia. (Don’t confuse court cases that grant churches and parishes based on Property Law as opposed to the real eccelisiastical successor of the Russian Church). ”
    I never give secular law priority over ecclesiastical canon when it comes to the Church: that’s uncanonical.
    But that doesn’t help you any, because in this case secular law and ecclesiastical canon are one-the OCA is the successor to the Russian Orthodox Church in North America, enshrined in the Cession Treaty (which retains the ecclesiastical jurisdiction for the OCA according to US law) and the Tomos of Autocephaly (which gives the OCA authority to exercise that jurisdiction according to the Sacred Canons).

    “Third, this separation from from Moscow, which is at this time completely communist and compromised, and placed the Metropolia in complete canonical limbo. The Metropolia never rapproached the ROCOC, thus the OCA is in canonical limbo and all rights under Moscow resided and STILL reside with the ROCOR”
    ROCOR isn’t the OCA’s Mother Church, nor Moscow’s. ROCOR having been reconciled to Mother Russia, she was reconciled with the OCA, shown by the many, many ROCOR-OCA concelebrations the day that the Act of Canonical Communion was signed.

    “Now if you want to argue if ROCOR has this right, which I do, then that’s great, but the OCA?”
    First you have to argue that ROCOR has this right, as the the central ecclesiastical authority of the Patriarch of Moscow, the Holy Synod of Russia as “the Supreme Ecclesiastical Council united together” per Ukaz 362 of Pat. St. Tikhon has found otherwise, i.e. for the OCA.

    “However, even if we are to go to your standard, the establishment of Orthodox Christian societies, the Greek Orthodox Society of Louisian was still formed first. the Orthodox society of Louisian was was formed in 1840!”
    Can you offer any proof of this claim?

    “Finally, I must say I thought was I pretty original in this train of thought. However, I am not. Check this out http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=20260.0;all
    I made quite a number of contributions exposing the silliness that went forth from Holy Cross that day. The last page of thread has a couple of particularly incisive ones.

    More on point on the absurd claims that have just got more absurd this year:
    http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22981.msg438948.html#msg438948

    “as everybody likes their mythologies, even Isa”
    I can’t help it if I like facts and not fabrications.

    “In the end it still does not matter because we here in America, after several future generation of Americanization, will form a United American Orthodox Church then NOT now, and it won’t be with the OCA.”
    I remember when the Phanar sent what was called by many here the “Troika” (the ones who gave us Abp. Spyridon), saying how North America will never be separated from the “Mother Church,” and priests noting that what that means is that it is coming soon.

    “Now the Isa’s and Bishop Tikhon’s of the world will keep pushing their myth of the OCA primacy and the GOA and EP will push their myth of Greek Primacy”
    We will present facts, and the Phanar will post fantasy, like this-
    http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/first-without-equals-elpidophoros-lambriniadis

    “Terms like “Tomb Worshippers,” “Black Bart,” “Klepto Krill,” etc., tear down the church and don’t build it up. ”
    Tomb Worshipers bury the Faith.

    “Calling the ROCOR a non-entity is hurtful and mean spirited NOT truthful, and has no place in Great lent.”
    taking the comment out of context doesn’t help.

    • Isa Almisry says

      “Isa, your not changing anything.”
      The Status quo sure isn’t changing anything.

      “I can continue to rip your argument apart day after day because that’s what I do for a living.”
      You can rip it, but unlike the US court system, truth matters here. Hence why you have yet to make a dent or a scratch.

      “Trust me when I tell you you have glaring errors, ommission and mistakes”
      Assertions of error without proof engender no trust.
      I have omitted nothing here, erred nowhere here, made no mistake here.

      “The EP and GOA are NOT going away.”
      The Islamist regime in charge in Istanbul need only continue on the way they are going to snuff the Phanar out. There are 3 million Greek Americans: the GOA has less than a million.

      ” The AOA is NOT going away.”
      I should hope not: I plan on going to Church Sunday.

      “ROCOR is not going away.”
      Are you in ROCOR?

      “So like I said getting at the truth in any dispute is NOT THE AIM! The aim is coming to a resolution.”
      LOL. Ah, yes, the exalted aim of the legal system-and the reason why the US is the most litigious nation on earth.
      Ignoring truth is like pulling the tops off of weeds and leaving the roots. They grow back.

      “Even with the whole Jerusalem/Qatar broo-ha-ha, you never resolved anything. You simply stated they are right and they are wrong. Who cares? RESOLVE THE PROBLEM BUDDY.”
      Upholding truth and justice is the best resolution: build on the Rock, not sinking sand.

      “You are dwelling on things that our parents were arguing.”
      So we are a couple generations down that Americanization you talked about then.

      “Let’s find a solution ALL of us.”
      It’s not in the Greek mythology of canon 28.

      • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

        Peter A. Papoutsis stated:

        I can continue to rip your argument apart day after day because that’s what I do for a living.”

        But:
        “Upholding the Gospel is what is best and what is built upon the rock of faith, not this stuff.”

        Question; How much does ripping Isa’s argument apart day after day pay?

  7. Michael Bauman says

    Isa, Peter which of you is of Paul and which of Apollos?

    • Isa Almisry says

      My name means “Jesus”, but the other half is ‘Abd al-Masih “Servant of Christ.” I have no Church of my own.

      • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

        Russians never bestow the names of the Theotokos or the Saviour on their children, but Greeks, Italians and others do. One of the titles of the Theotokos is ‘Panagia” or “All-Holy,” and she herself is addressed or referred to as Panagiota. Now Italians when naming boys after her, call them “Mario” (male Maria), while Greeks, when naming boys after her, call them Panagioti. Mario is much more understandable in our American society here, while Panagioti and even Panagiota are usually totally disguised by Pamela or the like. No, Russian Orthodox males are never named Christ or Christos or Iisus and Russian Orthodox girls are never named Bsesviataya or Presviataya, and if they are named “Maria” it is usually after Mary of Egypt.
        Peter told us his name is Panayiota. If he wants that to be recognized, it’s easier for my ancient hands to type “Mario” which is the same thing. I guess, Isa, that “Masih” is Arabic or Syriac for “Messiah?” It’s interesting to me that (Muslim) Arabs and Iranians routinely speak of Jesus Christ as “Messiah”, while Jews wouldn’t be caught dead doing that! Yet we treat the Arabs and the Iranians as worse than the Jews. Lord, have mercy!

        • Peter A. Papoutsis says

          Actually, my baptismal name is Panagotis Papoutsis. If I were female it would be Panagiota. My mother Maria and I celebrated the 15 day fast from August 1 till August 15. My mother named me after the Panagia after I survived my premature birth and she prayed to the Panagia to allow me to live. After I was out of danger she made a tama to take me to Tino and then the holy lands thereafter for pilgrimage. We did this right after I was accepted to law school. She fulfilled her tama. Soon thereafter I lost her, but I still remember her and the great devotion she taught me to have to the Panagia, and I still keep the August 15 day fast. Now I keep it with my daughter Maria and teach her about her grandmother and the Panagia.

          It is truly a blessing to be named after the Panagia.

          Peter

          • George Michalopulos says

            It is indeed an honor to be named for the Blessed Mother. I hadn’t heard “tama” in awhile. My parents made one to St Nektarios for my deliverance from an accident when I was ten and we went to Aegina to visit his tomb.

            • Peter A. Papoutsis says

              That’s a place I hope to go to some day with my wife and kids. Thanks for that reminder as well.

              Peter

        • Monk James says

          Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald (March 8, 2014 at 7:24 pm) says:

          Russians never bestow the names of the Theotokos or the Saviour on their children, but Greeks, Italians and others do. One of the titles of the Theotokos is ‘Panagia” or “All-Holy,” and she herself is addressed or referred to as Panagiota. Now Italians when naming boys after her, call them “Mario” (male Maria),….

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          ‘Maria’ is distinguished from ‘Mario’ by a completely different set of meanings, not to mention stress. Then there’s this from ‘Behind the Name’ dot com — a wonderful resource:

          http://www.behindthename.com/name/mario

          MARIO
          GENDER: Masculine
          USAGE: Italian, Spanish, Croatian
          PRONOUNCED: MAH-ryo (Italian, Spanish) [key]
          Meaning & History: Italian and Spanish form of MARIUS
          Related Names
          See All Relations
          Show Family Tree
          VARIANT: Marijo (Croatian)
          OTHER LANGUAGES: Marianus, Marinus, Marius (Ancient Roman), Marin (Bulgarian), Marian, Marián (Czech), Marius (Danish), Marijn, Marinus, Marius, Rien (Dutch), Marin, Marius (French), Marius (German), Marinos, Marios (Greek), Marián (Hungarian), Marijus (Lithuanian), Marin (Macedonian), Marius (Norwegian), Marian, Mariusz (Polish), Mariano, Mário, Marinho (Portuguese), Marian, Marin, Marius (Romanian), Marin, Marinko (Serbian), Marián (Slovak), Marijan, Marjan (Slovene), Meirion, Merrion (Welsh)
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          http://www.behindthename.com/name/marius

          MARIUS
          GENDER: Masculine
          USAGE: Ancient Roman, German, Dutch, Norwegian, Danish, French, Romanian
          PRONOUNCED: MER-ee-əs (English), MAR-ee-əs (English), MAH-ree-uws (German) [key]

          Meaning & History: Roman family name which was derived either from MARS, the name of the Roman god of War, or else from the Latin root mas, maris meaning “male”. Gaius Marius was a famous Roman consul of the 2nd century BC. Since the start of the Christian era, it has occasionally been used as a masculine form of MARIA.
          Related Names
          See All Relations
          Show Family Tree
          VARIANTS: Marianus, Marinus (Ancient Roman)
          FEMININE FORMS: Mariana, Marina (Ancient Roman)
          OTHER LANGUAGES: Marin (Bulgarian), Marijan, Marijo, Marin, Mario, Marjan, Marinko (Croatian), Marian, Marián (Czech), Marinos, Marios (Greek), Marián (Hungarian), Mariano, Marino, Mario (Italian), Marijus (Lithuanian), Marin (Macedonian), Marian, Mariusz (Polish), Mariano, Mário, Marinho (Portuguese), Marin, Marinko (Serbian), Marián (Slovak), Marijan, Marjan (Slovene), Mariano, Marino, Mario (Spanish), Meirion, Merrion (Welsh)

          • Tim R. Mortiss says

            I was wondering about that, especially having been recently put onto Colleen McCullough’s Rome novels. I’m in the middle of the first one, which is mainly about Gaius Marius and Sulla.

          • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

            Thank you, Monk James! I appreciate your massive researches; however, i wonder if the Italians, particularly those of southern Italy and Sicily, connect “Mario” with Latin Marius or with Maria. Do you know?

            • Monk James says

              Yes, I do.

              • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

                I had no idea you visit there! Do you go there often? And do you speak Italian well? That would aid you in your linguistic research no end! And do those Sicilians know their Roman history?

                • Monk James says

                  I lived among native speakers of Italian (including Sicilians and Neapolitans, not to mention a some Tuscans, Lombards and Avellinese) for a couple of years in my mid-1960s youth. I’m a little rusty now, but I can still make my way in the language fairly well.

                  It might be germane to mention that it was a fellow of Avelline ancestry who mentioned to me that he once had thought that ‘Mario’ was a masculine form of ‘Maria’, but he learned otherwise.

                  I’m not in a very good position to comment on how well the people of Sicily know roman history, but the island is full of ancient greek and byzantine archeological sites.

    • Peter A. Papoutsis says

      I’m for Jesus Christ. Always have been and always will be. I engaged Isa in this mental exercise to actually help him, and not to support Greeks or the OCA. Also, to show everybody how obsessed some people get, like Isa, like Bishop Tikhon and racist and triumphalist OCA views, that are so committed to the cause of whatever that they forget the Gospel, they forget love, mercy, grace, etc.

      If the claims of the OCA, if the claims of the Greeks, if the claims of Moscow, get in the way of fully believing in Jesus Christ and his Gospel, and showing true Christian love and compassion, then all the cites to canon law, the tomos, etc., are all meaningless, a waste of time and even destructive. If I am correct in all canon interpretations but have not love it profits me nothing.

      That was the point of all this. That the Gospel and the love of Christ are more important not this that or anything else. We are separate because we have forgotten this, and during Great Lent we need to get back to that and let go of things that truly mean nothing and does nothing good for us as the body of Christ.

      Peter

      • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

        I like it when Peter (Mario) gets stuck in his arguing. Then he, like a squid squirting out ink to conceal his escape, produces a pile of pious vapors which say, basically, ‘Now I will take the high road, unlike these people who have disagreed with me.” It’s as if the Pharisee would turn around and deign to address the Publican! It’s a regular, well-established pattern of behavior. Check out his ‘View all comments!”

        • Peter Papoutsis says

          Did you just call me a squid? I have been called a lot of things but not that. I guess it could be worse. You could call me Mario, oh wait…gotta love it.

          Peter

  8. George Farsalas says

    Do Native American Orthodox have a place in this discussion?

    • Isa Almisry says

      “Do Native American Orthodox have a place in this discussion?”
      Define native American (my family has been here 4 generations-5 if you count my sons. And the first recorded Orthodox in America was born in colonial Virginia).

      If you mean the Amerindians, they sure do.

    • Peter A. Papoutsis says

      Absolutely brother.

      Peter

    • George Farsalas says

      The reason I ask this is because I don’t believe we can have a “first” of anything from anywhere unless it includes the indigenous peoples of the land we’re talking about. Whether it be LA, CA , or Fl, all of the churches established in those territories or eventual states came on the heels of colonial imperialism (except for the Russian mission to Alaska). Establishing a church through conquest, even if unintentional, is not the Orthodox way. If an American church is to emerge, it must include in a significant way those who have the closest, most ingrained ties to the land. We need to be invited in first.

      • Tim R. Mortiss says

        Russian expansion into North America was not “colonial imperialism”? Whereas British was?

        • Isa Almisry says

          Unlike the British, the Russian lived and intermarried with the locals. They learned the local language, not forced the locals to speak theirs: Met. Innocent’s catechism published for the Empire’s schools when he was enthroned in Moscow was translated into Russian from his original Aleut, written when he was bishop of Sitka. The treaty that established Fort Ross was the only one made between Europeans and the CA Amerindians.

          • Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

            Unlike the British, the Russian lived and intermarried with the locals.

            Ever hear of Pocahontas AKA Rebecca Rolfe? The fact is that for a lot of pioneer men, Indian women were the only possible wives around, and that accounts for most of the Anglo-Americans like Johnny Depp who now proudly claim Indian descent.

            • George Michalopulos says

              Fr, that’s true, but the Russo-Siberians felt no shame in creating a mestizo sub-culture. While many white Americans are proud of having some Indian ancestry today, I well remember a time in which older people I knew did everything in their power to disguise Indian ancestry, even when it was not in their economic interests to do so. The “One Drop Rule” applied to Indians as well as negroes, creating a Color Bar. South of the Rio Grande however we find a Color Continuum.

              You see much Russian intermarriage with Finns, Balts, Germans, Swedes for example throughout Russian history with nary a passing comment With the Caucasians not so much.

              • Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

                Apples to oranges, George. Just like the Russians, the English often intermarried with other Europeans nearby. That’s not to say they didn’t have their ethnic prejudices, but only someone who doesn’t know Russians would pretend they were without similar prejudices.

                Throughout history, intermarriage has been a matter of degrees of difference and the availability of closer alternatives. English settlers and American Indians were as far apart civilizationally as people could be at that time (the latter being stone-age savages), and yet there was intermarriage — until European immigration provided the settlers with European alternatives.

                Latin America is a different story, but not one reflecting badly upon the English. There, strong prejudice persists on the part of the more Spanish upper-classes against the more Indian lower-classes.

              • Tim R. Mortiss says

                George, extraordinary that Russians freely intermarried with Finns, Balts, Germans, and Swedes! This only goes to show they had no shame in a mestizo sub-culture!

                You might be surprised to hear that those of English descent also mix with similar peoples without let or hindrance. I have known more than one in this country who has married one of German or Norsk ancestry! I myself deigned to take a bride of Croatian/Irish blood, and married her before the dreaded altar of her savage peoples, the Roman Catholics.

                I take pride in my mixed-blood children, not to mention my hordes of heterodox grandchildren!

            • Isa Almisry says

              “Ever hear of Pocahontas AKA Rebecca Rolfe?”
              Done more than that. Been to the church she was baptized and married in. That, however, was safe in the hoary past: in the present passing was the norm, and the Amerindian drops of blood hushed up as much as possible. The French were better than the English, and Spanish better in that the Amerindians and mixed ancestry were kept (but as an underclass), but only in Russian society were Amerindians and creoles (which, like among the French, meant mixed blood, not just a European born in the New World) possible to stand as equals to the Europeans.

              • Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

                Rates of European immigration explain the apparent (exaggerated) differences in race relations better than religion or race. Anglo immigration was much larger than French, Spanish, and Russian immigration. The English came in such numbers that they simply displaced the aboriginal population, which the others did not do because they could not do, being much fewer in proportion to the Indians.

        • George Farsalas says

          Hey Tim,
          After doing a bit more research, I would have to agree that the Russian expansion was more than just a fur trading expedition. The level of aggression and coercion showed a lack of respect for human dignity. So we are totally at square one.

          • George Michalopulos says

            Mr Farsalas, we often forget who was involved in fur-trading: Amerinds as well as Europeans (French and Russians). Amerinds were not peaceful people, I know this coming from Oklahoma. I learned early on not to patronize them and view them as passive victims or patsies. They knew of their ancestors’ savagery (often towards each other) and are not ashamed of it. They were, and continue to be, proud warriors who are not ashamed of their traditions.

            What’s my point? If a European wanted to trade fur he had to give as good as he got, otherwise their outposts would have been wiped out in 2 seconds. Just sayin’.

            • George Farsalas says

              Hi George,
              True, Europeans don’t have a monopoly on giving someone the business, but we have to also remember that the Amerinds are not a homogeneous group. Big difference between an Apache and a Chippewa.

              • George Michalopulos says

                Of course. I’m talking mainly of the Plains Indians but the Five Civilized Tribes were no slouches either when it came to warfare.

            • Isa Almisry says

              There is a collection of Kashaya Pomo (the Amerinidans near Fort Ross) texts which are interesting because they are of a man born in 1882, Herman James, who was close to his grandmother Lukeria (d. 1908) who had lived near colony Fort Ross-it is conjectured that she appears on St. Innocent’s list of the baptized Amerindians at the colony in 1836. A number of things they mention have been corroborated from European sources. One story his grandmother told was of a Amerindian woman who was driven to suicide by her Russian partner (not sure if they were married, but the story’s beginning IIRC was told the grandmother from their daughter). After the woman jumped off the nearby clear (it’s quite a fall), the Russian authorities, after investigating and finding out the cause of the despair, took the Russian partner, and locked him up. A week later they tied him to a pole in the public square, and beat him to death. The story seems to have left the impression among the Amerindians, so used to European abuse (Spanish,American, etc.), of surprise that the Russians treated the Amerindians as persons worthy of retribution.

          • Tim R. Mortiss says

            Mind you, I don’t by my question mean to assert that colonial expansion into North America was a bad thing…..

            As to later Alaska developments, I’d say the Yanks got a good deal on the price.

            • George Farsalas says

              I don’t know Tim. If I came home today to find a stranger sitting on my couch, eating my cheetos, I’d consider that a bad thing(more so for him than me).

              Yep, at 7 mil. -it was a steal.

      • Peter A. Papoutsis says

        You know George, you may have a point.

        Peter

      • Isa Almisry says

        “Whether it be LA, CA , or Fl, all of the churches established in those territories or eventual states came on the heels of colonial imperialism (except for the Russian mission to Alaska).”
        Btw, the first Orthodox established by Russia was in colonial VA, when the Holy Synod so empowered Philip Ludwell III, born in Virginia, through their embassy Church in London. No question of Russia establishing a Church through conquest in either London or Virginia. Btw, instead of having Ludwell learn Russian, the HS charged him with translating the DL and Catechism into English (from Greek).

    • Michael Bauman says

      Of course they do. We need you. I don’t have the words to say how much or in what way, but the need is real and deep.

      • George Michalopulos says

        May the Lord forgive us (ROA-Sitka excepted) for setting up Orthodox ghettos and ignoring the American people.

  9. Lola J. Lee Beno says

    Message of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches

    http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/synaxis-2014-message

    George, I’m sure you will be able to dig up quite a few blog posts over the next two years.

  10. Archpriest John W. Morris says

    St. Raphael was glorified by the OCA because he was an auxiliary Bishop under the Russians to serve the Arab speaking Orthodox in America. The Antiochian Archdiocese was not founded until 1924, when the Russians had too many problems of their own after the 1917 Revolution and the arrival of the representatives of the pro-Communist Living Church to care for their Arab speaking parishes. As a result the Russian Bishops instructed their Arab speaking parishes to place themselves under Antioch, which received not only the blessing of the Bishops of the Metropolia, but of Moscow and the Bishops who formed ROCOR to assume jurisdiction over the Arab Orthodox parishes in North America. Therefore Antioch followed proper canonical procedure and secured the blessing of the Orthodox canonical Orthodox authorities in North America before assuming jurisdiction over parishes here.

    • Isa Almisry says

      “the Russian Bishops instructed their Arab speaking parishes to place themselves under Antioch, which received not only the blessing of the Bishops of the Metropolia, but of Moscow and the Bishops who formed ROCOR to assume jurisdiction over the Arab Orthodox parishes in North America.”
      You have mentioned this before, Father: what was the nature of this “blessing,” as the Metropolia continued to consecrated bishops for Arabs, e.g. +Emmanuel (Abo-Hatab) of Montreal and Canada/then Brooklyn, +Sophronius (Beshara) of Los Angeles, after 1924, and the Metropolia consecrated +Samuel (David) of Toledo on the same day as (April 19, 1936) and in apparent opposition to Antioch’s consecration of +Anthony (Bashir) of New York (the direct predecessor of Met. Philip)?

      • Archpriest John W. Morris says

        I believe that the Holy Synod of the Metropolia did not authorize the consecration of Met. Samuel David. Bishops Leonty and Arseny acted on their own. Met. Samuel’s Archdiocese never functioned under the Metropolia, but instead sought recognition from The Patriarchate of Antioch which he finally achieved in 1941. Russian Bishops also assisted Metropolitan, later Patriarch Theodosius in the consecration of Met. Anthony Bashir with the blessings of the Patriarchate of Antioch. The two Antiochian Archdioceses remained divided until 1975. My point is that unlike some other Orthodox jurisdictions, Antioch followed proper procedure by receiving the proper blessings from those who had authority in North American before it established its North American Archdiocese. Thus, the Russian Bishops gave up their jurisdiction over the Antiochian parishes. Having given it up so long ago they cannot reclaim it now.

    • It should be noted that St Raphael had a praxis from Antioch and very much seems to have presented himself (if you look at his sermons or at issues of the Word from his lifetime) as being as much under Antioch as Russia. He was in a canonical situation that was pretty well sui generis.

      • Isa Almisry says

        I wonder if he had thought that one day he would return to Antioch-all other bishops in North America had returned home-he was the first to repose in service to the New World-and his service in Russia had been at the Antiochian metochion.

  11. Somehow, I think this is related-
    Very, very interesting. . . .

    Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2014.01.13
    David Engels, Le déclin: la crise de l’Union européenne et la chute de la République romaine. Paris: Éditions du Toucan, 2012. Pp. 379. ISBN 9782810005246. €20.00 (pb).

    Reviewed by Alex McAuley, McGill University (alexander.mcauley@mcgill.ca)
    David Engels has intrepidly ventured with elegant reflection and incisive insight where most fear to tread in his poignant monograph Le déclin: la crise de l’Union Européenne et la chute de la République romaine. The title tells all: Engels seeks to understand the current crisis besetting the European Union through the analogous lens of the late Roman Republic: an approach of historical parallelism that, though potentially fraught with peril, is employed with sobriety and precision. Given that he holds a Chair of Roman History at l’Université libre de Bruxelles, Engels himself is uniquely poised to undertake such a study. Seeing the politics and concerns of the present in light of the past, and the inverse, is hardly new. Yet in such treatments – whether the analogy is overt or hidden – one side of the comparison all too often remains imbalanced: if the ancient is eruditely discussed, the modern is glossed over, or vice versa.

    Such is not the case with the monograph in question. What is novel about Engels’ approach is the candour and directness with which he presents and develops his analogy. It comes as little surprise that Le déclin has garnered such a flurry of attention from at first European and now (French-) Canadian media, not just for its provocative frankness but also for its broad appeal.1 While we may instinctively avoid books such as this that smack of the popular, such instincts would in this case lead us away from a work that is equally insightful concerning both of these worlds.

    The premise is simple: the European Union is in decline in a manner strikingly reminiscent of the twilight years of the Roman Republic. The roots of this crisis, in both the ancient and the modern contexts, run far deeper than the simply economic or demographic indicators: the problem, at its core, is the absence of a unifying identity. Contemporary Europe accordingly is poised at the brink: it can either return to being the influential political actor that it had once been, or plunge into obscurity as little more than a free-trade zone that is a “une sorte de musée de sa propre histoire” (16). In Engels’ eyes a similar situation prevailed at Rome between the Gracchi and the Principate (c. 133-27 B.C.), when Romans – elite and common – were forced to face the collapse of the traditional character of their society and government. Yet here for the sake of argument I ought to note that there are intrinsic structural differences between the two: the EU is a fundamentally multinational and federative body, while the mid to late Republic, with its different tiers comprising Rome itself, tota Italia, and the (emergent) provincial system, is perhaps a more complex and convoluted entity, and one that might more fittingly be compared to the United States.

    The precise nature of this crisis of identity is the subject of the book’s first chapter, identifying the contemporary European dilemma as the (failed) attempt to ground a collective continental identity on abstract universal values (pp. 13-58). The intersection of what were once deeply entrenched attachments to nationalism, religion, and the family with a more pluralistic and integrative social climate is currently occurring in Europe just as it had in Rome. Both are experiencing periods of profound and rapid social and demographic change, and neither knows (or knew) precisely how to respond to such change. In what forms the core of the book’s argumentation, Engels then proceeds to develop his analogy through considering the consequences of twelve central tenets of contemporary European identity and comparing them to their equivalents in the Roman context. The vigorous promotion of such values, according to Engels’ principal thesis, hardly contributes to social coherence but rather destabilises continental unity and provokes a reversion to more traditional attachments.

    The indices of comparison are all drawn verbatim from official declarations of the European Union, beginning with abstract values and their repercussions. (1) Promoting cosmopolitanism, tolerance, and integration in place of a more homogeneously defined society marginalises the traditional coherence of European member states in the same manner as the trends toward an affinity for Hellenic culture eroded the foundations of the Roman Republic. (2) The decreased importance of the nuclear family, together with social equality, leads to a concurrent drop in fertility rates that further broadens the demographic gap between immigrants and native-born citizens in contemporary Europe, Hellenistic Greece, and the Roman Republic alike. (3) Promoting the universal ideal of equality and the pre-eminence of the individual manifests itself in spiralling divorce rates which in turn compromise traditional forms of identity construction. (4) The emphasis on individual prosperity creates an ever-widening income gap between rich and poor, thus cultivating a political environment that is subject to the whims of the marketplace, all the while leaving the individual ever more isolated and socially impoverished. (5) Confronted with, respectively, Enlightenment and Hellenistic philosophy, the spiritual anchors of social identity are in decline and thus one of the most traditionally cohesive forces of civic solidarity is undermined. (6) Promoting integrationist and cosmopolitan policies has placed traditional mores on the chopping block, leading to the auto-denigration of native traditions in favour of syncretism.

    Thus far all of Engels’ indices have been drawn from the social realm, but in the latter half of his oeuvre he takes a rather different tack by considering the impact thereof on governance and policy. Accordingly, (7) individual liberties are being sacrificed in exchange for a more guaranteed sense of order, in reaction to the perceived widespread violence of post-9/11 society and Roman tumult in 70s and 60s B.C., respectively. (8) Absenteeism and apathy among the electorate is rampant, leading to a staggering drop in voter participation and compromising the representative character of elected bodies. Concurrently, voter coercion and misinformation bordering on propaganda run rampant. (9) The state has become professionalised and technocratic to the point of being opaque and inaccessible, prioritising commercial interests to the extent that disenchantment and pessimism flourish, leading some to pursue extralegal resolution of pressing issues. (10) The traditional right of personal liberty has fallen by the wayside, paradoxically leading to a passive citizenry overshadowed by ever more interconnected government systems. Engels then proceeds to drive the analogy home with his last two indices, which make the bold – though certainly well-supported – comparison between the European Union and the Roman Empire. The promotion of peace (11) and the state’s responsibility to maintain a pacified state of affairs creates an ideological basis for forcible internal and external intervention. Finally, the promotion of solidarity (12) rooted not in social but in economic criteria similarly compromises the agency of peripheral member states, and creates a fiscal hegemony from which escape is nearly impossible. In the end, all of the above serve to blur the differences between the Roman Empire and the potential character of the European Union, and the analogies between the two are “sont plus étroites que l’on pourrait imaginer” (252).

    In his conclusion, Engels (pp. 253-264) elegantly unites all the various strands of the preceding points into an argument in favour of looking towards – though not necessarily returning to – the heritage of the European Union and finding therein a more lasting basis for future cohesion. The Roman example thus transcends mere parallelism by being a potential paradigm for the future. If the lessons to be found in the Roman experience are not learned, however, Europe risks either implosion or a slide towards autocracy.

    Unsurprisingly, it is Engels’ adventurous epilogue (pp. 268-287) that has garnered the most attention in the press. In this he permits himself to speculate on the potential consequences of the current state of European decline, and the forecast for the future is decidedly grim: if Europe continues on its present course, the shadow of Augustan-style totalitarianism as a means of guaranteeing peace and social order looms just over the horizon. The new EU that would result would be a contemporary echo of the Augustan regime, and through this assertion Engels advances his broader model, in which an attempt to impose universalist democratic values on a society or federation will lead inexorably towards traditionalist authoritarianism. Pessimistically parallel, to be sure, but not altogether unbelievable. Nonetheless although early Augustan Rome and the EU are presented as both being in periods of profound crisis, one wonders to what extent the gravity of nearly a century of civil war, proscriptions, two triumvirates, and violence in every corner of the Mediterranean is really matched by the contemporary economic privations of the EU. While I would imagine that Engels’ indulgence in speculation will draw criticism, the manner which he clearly separates this epilogue from the broader scope of his analysis and openly indicates when he is editorialising makes the addition of such speculation to me seem at once methodologically sound and insightful.

    There is a pessimism that calls to mind tones of Sallust or Tacitus pervading Engels’ work, and a deep conservatism at times comes to the fore that is further reminiscent of late Republic and early Imperial historiography. But such is precisely his intention and is integral to his approach; as he concludes his epilogue, “Mais il y a des époques dans l’histoire humaine où tout ‘optimisme’ n’est que lâcheté et aveuglement irresponsable, alors que le ‘pessimisme’ permet de faire face – honorablement – à l’inévitable.” (287).

    Nevertheless in this otherwise admirable book there are potential critiques that ought to be made. Perhaps the most obvious aspect with which a Classicist would find fault is the inevitable disconnect between ancient and modern evidentiary material. In discussing the contemporary state of affairs, Engels employs statistics from opinion polls furnished by EuroStat and Eurobaromètre, bolstered by material drawn from EU documents and policies and political studies. All is soundly quantitative and objective, and seemingly beyond reproach. Unsurprisingly the ancient evidence affords no such solidity: nearly all of his assertions regarding the problems besetting late Republican society are supported by quotations from ancient authors, ranging from Republican period historiographers to Imperial-era playwrights and beyond. The contrast between ‘popular’ quantitative evidentiary material for the modern case, and exclusively elite literary evidence for the ancient is often difficult to surmount. The reader at times wonders to what extent such elite ancient views can be held as exemplary of broader contemporary sentiment – especially given the chronological distance. Yet such is the nature of the beast, and the care and reservation with which Engels employs his ancient source material does much to neutralize the potential danger.

    Second, the title of the work is rather misleading: the ancient chronological scope that Engels discusses spans (generally) from the Second Punic War into the Augustan period, and thus strictly speaking transcends what is canonically held to be the fall of the Roman Republic. Instead, the ancient analogy that is drawn herein is more to Rome’s transition from Republic to Empire. A final – and an admittedly minor – point is that to the potential irritation of some researchers Engels’ 609 continuously-numbered notes have been compiled into a single reference section, and the volume lacks a comprehensive bibliography.

    These details aside, however, Engels has done a highly commendable job of simultaneously grasping the slippery strands of ancient and modern scholarship. His identification and analysis of the similarities between Rome’s tumultuous transition from Republic to Empire and the crisis which threatens to tear the European Union apart at its foundation is in equal parts convincing and unsettling. Regardless of whether the reader agrees with his either sobering or pessimistic conclusions, Engels has handled his subject with a candour and honesty that can only serve to incite further debate, discussion, and reflection – just as was his intent. And given the recurring frequency with which the ancients have been painted in neoliberal colours particularly in the years following September 11th, it is intriguing in this instance to glimpse them from the other side of the aisle.

  12. I found this interesting:

    “Another topic of administrative nature requiring our resolution is that which pertains to the method of pronouncing decisions by the Holy and Great Council. For reasons of fairness to every autocephalous Church, irrespective of the number of its delegates, it is imperative that each autocephalous Church retains the right of a single vote in the final process of decision-making, which will be exercised by its First-Hierarch during the voting process. What remains crucial is the question about whether the final decisions of the Synod will be determined by unanimity or majority among the Churches in attendance at the Synod. If the criterion of our choice is the ancient canonical tradition of the Church, the canonical order compels that the “majority vote” ultimately prevails in the Synod’s decisions. (See Canon 6 of the 1st Ecumenical Council)”- Patriarch Bartholomew’s Address to the Synaxis of Primates of the Orthodox Churches, March 6-9

    http://www.omhksea.org/2014/03/address-by-his-all-holiness-ecumenical-patriarch-bartholomew-at-the-synaxis-of-first-hierarchs-of-the-orthodox-churches/

    • Isa Almisry says

      His All Holiness conveniently forgets that every Ecumenical and every Pan Orthodox Council was decided by consensus, not majority vote. His Vatican training is showing.

      Again, HAH is counting on 6 votes for Omogeneia. Count us out.

  13. Michael Bauman says

    Totally irrelevant: Wichita State University Shockers men basketball 34-0. Women win the conference regular season.

  14. http://byztex.blogspot.com/2014/03/pat-kirill-of-moscow-speed-up.html

    I could be mistaken but this big shindig planned for 2016 is looking less and less like a Great and Holy Synod (aka Ecumenical Council) and more like some type of All-Orthodox primatial council. One representative from each church, voting by either majority (Phanar’s proposal) or consensus (Moscow). Documents approved before the council (Moscow).

    I’m not sure what they’re discussing, but no one seems to be talking about inviting all Orthodox bishops on earth to assemble someplace to settle a doctrinal matter. Not that I think avoiding a true Great and Holy Synod is a bad idea. I’d much rather this cast of characters not be given live ammunition.

    • Michael Woerl says

      You’re not mistaken, Misha! Ecumenical Councils were called to battle heresy, not to assert jurisdiction, not to push through a completely novel and papal primacy, nor to “reform” the Orthodox Church, nor to convince all the Churches that “ecumenical participation is required because you signed an Orthodox consultation agreement,” nor to “get serious about Christian unity.” St Justin Popovich warned years ago that this “Council,” some 90 years in the making, would result only in “division and schism.” Hopefully, the statements “begging to differ” fron Russia, Romania, Georgia, and Antioch’s rather obvious “no go” on Canon 28 may temper the Phanar’s boldness. Also, quite obviously, Ecumenical Councils were never a mere forum to sign on to prepackaged “decisions.” It’s a farce!

  15. Archpriest John W. Morris says

    I do not know were to put this, but everyone should know that His Eminence Metropolitan Philip, the Primate of the Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America fell asleep in the Lord today. He leaves behind a glorious legacy of accomplishments that transformed our Archdiocese. He will be missed by all those who had to privilege of serving under his omophorion. Words fail me as I try to express my sadness.

    • Michael Bauman says

      Indeed Father. May the Lord keep us all in His hands and may He send us a new shepherd just as faithful and strong.

  16. Where to begin? How about “the Russian bishops instructed (recommended, told, whatever …) their Arab parishioners to join the Patriarchate of Antioch?” Nothing could be further from the truth! St Raphael was consecrated as Bishop of Brooklyn, “head of the Syrian Orthodox spiritual mission in North America;” in 1904, by Abp Tikhon of North America (Holy Patriarch Tikhon); the Brooklyn Diocese being part and parcel of the Russian “Archdiocese.” After Bp Raphael’s repose, attempts were made to detach the Syrian parishes from the Russian Church. Met Evdokim (Meshchersky) and Bp Alexander (Nemolovsky) consecrated Aftimios Ofiesh as bishop in 1917, to head the Brooklyn Diocese and shepherd the Syrian flock, still, of course, an integral part of the Russian Church. Aftimios’ career as bishop was largely occupied with rebuffing “Antiochian” pretensions to jurisdiction in America. Met Platon (Rozhdestvensky, +1934), in 1927, going so far as to “create” an “American Autocephalous Church,” to be headed by Aftimios, for Arabs “and other American Orthodox.” Bishop Leonty (Turkevich), and another (by that time) N. American Metropolia bishop, whose name I forget, were slated by Platon to be Aftimios’ Vicars. The entire enterprise fell through, for 2 reasons-the financially struggling Metropolia was largely financed by the Protestant Episcopal Church, which, apparently enthralled at the time by the “branch theory of Christianity,” saw itself as the “American Orthodox” church, and took great exception at this creation of Met Platon. Financial disbursements to the Metropolia in danger of being lost, Platon withdrew support, forbade Leonty and the other candidate to be consecrated for the “Autocephalous Church,” and no longer recognized it. The fact that it was comprised primarily of Arabs didn’t seem to register with the Episcopalians; apparently they did not like the name. The other reason the “American Autocephalous Church” failed was, of course, because no other Orthodox Church would even considered recognizing it. The first attempt at an “American Orthodox Church” ended up going off into never never land, populated by various vagante “bishops” spouting various occult philosophies … of course, that’s according to who you “believe!” In his history of the Metropolia until 1934 (a very convenient “stopping point,” as in 1935, the Metropolia rejoined ROCOR after the schism of 1926), Bp Gregory (Afonsky) quoted some “noted Metropolia canonist,” … Bogolepov? Not sure I’m remembering the correct name-as stating that the Metropolia had “really declared Autocephaly in 1924,” although Met Platon claimed, in response to questions at a meeting of the Council of Bishops of ROCOR in Serbia that the incident referred to in the quote in Bp Gregory’s book by the “canonist” was merely the “allowing of the escape of autocephalous gases.” At the time this meeting of the ROCOR Council took place, Met Platon was a member of the Council, a hierarch of ROCOR who had participated in its founding, a bishop who had abandoned his diocese of Odessa, a monarchist, whose Metropolia was under the jurisdiction of ROCOR. Despite protestations to the contrary by Fathers Schmemann, Meyendorff, et al … perhaps Met Platon was merely in Sremtsy Karlovtsy answering questions in the ROCOR Council of Bishops meeting simply because he happened to be in town and … dropped by?
    There is much in “American Orthodox History” that has been purposefully and blatantly falsified. If one cares to go to sources, instead of simply accepting jurisdictionally slanted revisionism, one would be amazed!
    The North American Metropolia/OCA has been in the vanguard of … well, historical fraud! By both deception, and omission.
    There is, of course, much, much more to report on the fabrications, half truths, omissions, etc., etc., but I’m tired of typing, and get bored very easily by the incredulous denials and “how dare you’s” by those who would rather live the fantasy … To Isa Almistry … Who, in another forum demanded links and sources, yet refused to supply any himself, and to all other seekers-its all out there! If you’re truly interested in finding out, rather than parroting jurisdictional triumphalism … Seek, and ye shall find!

    • I might add, although Met Platon created an “American Autocephalous Church,” neither he nor his Metropolia were going to actually join it! Maybe that “precedent” is where the MP got the idea of creating an “Autocephalous Church” in whose territory “we” can still have dioceses!
      While, yes, the OCA does “participate” in “inter-Orthodox meetings,” it was not invited to the recent “inter-Orthodox meeting” at the Phanar. This was because the Patriarchate of Constantinople, nor many other Orthodox Churches, recognize its “Autocephaly” as legitimate. While there is nothing to prevent it (as yet!) from “joining in a future
      Autocephalous American Church,” a “United American Church,” that eventuality is by no means guaranteed, nor even likely. While I personally fail to see the urgency, in that I, of course, have no say in the matter one way or the other, complaints should not come to me, but to the Patriarchate who, claiming supreme and total jurisdiction in the “diaspora,” has its own plans for America. These plans, most obviously, do not include “autocephaly.”

      • Peter A. Papoutsis says

        Eventually the truth always comes out and it’s never what anyone of us likes. But then that’s the nature of truth.

        Peter

      • Isa Almisry says

        “While, yes, the OCA does “participate” in “inter-Orthodox meetings,” it was not invited to the recent “inter-Orthodox meeting” at the Phanar. This was because the Patriarchate of Constantinople, nor many other Orthodox Churches, recognize its “Autocephaly” as legitimate.”
        Since the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, whose autocephaly the Patriarchate of Constantinople and all Orthodox Churches recognizes as legitimate, wasn’t invited either-your point has no substance to it.

        The lack of an invitation was because the Phanar sent the invitations out, and it claims “Ecumenical jurisdiction” of the “diaspora” which NO Orthodox Church recognizes as legitimate.

        • Michael Woerl says

          No Orthodox Church recognizes the Phanar’s claim to the “diaspora?” Apparently, you don’t consider the Patriarchate of Constantinople an “Orthodox Church?” I would think the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria (especially as both gave way to the Phanar’s insistence they had “violated its canonical territory in the US and Australia …) and Cyprus do recognize that claim! The Greek components of the “New Pentarchy!”
          Apparently, Antioch was thought to be “rock solid” on that issue, but the disaster that would result from losing its parishes in North & South America and Australia were realized. And… What’s the deal in Qatar? The Phanar is not usually shy about making dire threats in jurisdictional squabbles. None to Pat. Theophilos, who the Phanar installed? We know why the Qataris don’t want Antioch in their country; with that obvious refusal-if it came down to it-why not simply explain it … Political expediency requires it-Jerusalem in Qatar, or no Orthodox church will be allowed; have Antioch sign off on it … or not! Why all the mystery?

          • Isa Almisry says

            “No Orthodox Church recognizes the Phanar’s claim to the “diaspora?” Apparently, you don’t consider the Patriarchate of Constantinople an “Orthodox Church?” I would think the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria (especially as both gave way to the Phanar’s insistence they had “violated its canonical territory in the US and Australia …) and Cyprus do recognize that claim! The Greek components of the “New Pentarchy!””
            Alas! (at least for the Phanar) no. Jerusalem just a few years ago had to be induced to turn over its jurisdiction in North America-not its first, just its latest-over to Constantinople’s. Alexandria had founded a jurisdiction at least twice in North America, and it claimed all of Africa from the ’30s, not 2002 as the Metropolitan of Bursa claims. Greek income, not the Phanar’s insistence swayed them in North America, but the Phanar had to give up on the African continent.

            Your comments on Antioch lack intelligibility. Antioch was “rock solid” in rejecting the Phanar’s claims, but you seem to think otherwise. “That obvious refusal”? Qatar stems from the meddling of the Greek American ambassador to Qatar-and “to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem”(?!). What is mystifying you?

            • Michael Woerl says

              What’s mystifying me is that, the Phanar has recently -in the “consultations,” or whatever they called it, of the “New Pentarchy,” warned the autocephalous Churches to stay within their boundaries. As mentioned, the Phanar is not averse to issuing dire threats over jurisdictional squabbles. Patriarch Theophilos was installed by the Phanar. Why no threats, or “Primatial Decree” for Jerusalem to simply “get out” of Qatar? You say it’s all due to “the meddling of the Greek Ambassador.” Yeh? For what purpose? This was all “mediated” by some ministry of the Greek government and representatives of the Phanar, with no resolution-as, supposedly, Jerusalem refused. The Qatari government, obviously, as one of the primary financial supporters of Islamic jihad in Syria, does not want a “Damascus based organization” within its borders. So, I ask-is this all for some political expediency which is apparently the only way to have an Orthodox parish in Qatar? What, exactly, is the Greek Ambassador’s angle? It would be quite interesting, on many levels, if the Phanar assents to a “loosening,” or “violation” of jurisdictional boundaries due to political conditions, in light of their own exaggerated jurisdictional claims and warnings. The statement that it’s all due to “the Greek Ambasssdor” is not, by any means, a “de-mystification.” Or, that’s all you know?

    • Isa Almisry says

      “To Isa Almistry … Who, in another forum demanded links and sources, yet refused to supply any himself”
      Oh? Where was that? Because I supply plenty of sources to back up anything I post.

      “If you’re truly interested in finding out, rather than parroting jurisdictional triumphalism … Seek, and ye shall find!”
      Physician, heal thyself:
      “Met Platon was a member of the Council, a hierarch of ROCOR who had participated in its founding, a bishop who had abandoned his diocese of Odessa, a monarchist, whose Metropolia was under the jurisdiction of ROCOR”
      No, it was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Moscow.

      Abandoned his diocese of Odessa? Like Met. Anastasy (Gribanovsky) of Kishinev or Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev?

      How many non-monarchist bishops were in the Russian Church?

      • Michael Woerl says

        If you were at all familiar with Metropolia/OCA polemics vs ROCOR, you would know this “charge” was levelled against ROCOR on more than one occssion by the “leading lights” of the OCA. It was stated that ROCOR was composed of “monarchist bishops who abandoned their dioceses …”; as they never admitted Metropolitan Platon was in ROCOR, they also never admitted that he was a “monarchist,” (and, indeed, all the Bishops in the emogration at that time were-why make a point of stating that ROCOR bishops were “monarchists?” Perhaps you can tell me) as they never admitted his abandonment of the Odessa diocese. As they also never mentioned that his appointment to North America from Patriarch Tikhon was requested through ROCOR … as I mentioned -a lot of deception and omission in the “telling of the story.” Met Anastassy, in fact , did not actually “abandon” his diocese; it was taken over by the Romanian Church, and he was given the option to join the Romanian Church, which he declined. Obviously, you don’t know about either facet of this-ROCOR history, nor the Metropolia/OCA false “re-creation” of their own history …

        • Isa Almisry says

          If you were at all familiar with Metropolia/OCA polemics vs ROCOR, you would know this “charge” was levelled against ROCOR….Obviously, you don’t know about either facet of this-ROCOR history, nor the Metropolia/OCA false “re-creation” of their own history

          Oh, I’m well aware of the history. I’m just calling you on on the charges you are leveling against the OCA,, and your recreation of its history in ROCOR’s image.

          “In reality, one cannot blame or judge any of these Bishops for “abandoning” their Diocese. At that time, any who stayed would have certainly been killed” but you just did, implying dereliction of duty on the part of Met. Platon, with not a word on Abp. Alexander (Nemolovsky), who did indeed abandon his see, i.e. North America. Not without, however, passing it on to his predecessor as his successor-Met. Platon.

          Which leads to that distinction between the OCA and ROCOR which “amazes” you: Abp. Alexander had been elected at the Second All-American Sobor (the First having been instituted by Abp. then Pat. St. Tikhon) in February 1919, after Abp. Evdokim (Meschersky; Abp./Met. Platon’s successor in North America) left him administrator of the Archdiocese and did not return from the All Russian Sobor. The Patriarchate of Moscow and Holy Synod restored by the All Russian Sobor confirmed the American Sobor and its Archbishop August 27, 1920. That situation stood when Moscow issued Ukaz 362 on November 20, 1920.

          So when Abp. Alexander came to Karlovsky in 1921, he came as he left-Archbishop of North America and the Aleutians, with a mandate predating and independent of the Karlovsky “Higher Church Authority.” IOW the “confirmation” of the Karlovsky synod added nothing to his authority.

          ROCOR differs from when Met. Platon-who returned to Abp. Alexander’s Archdiocese of North America in 1921-received his mandate:

          The hierarchs who arrived in Constantinople immediately appealed to the Locum Tenens of the Ecumenical Throne, Metropolitan Dorotheos of Prusa of blessed memory, with a request to permit them to continue to take care of their Russian flock. This permission was given them by an act of December 29, 1920. At the beginning of the next year, 1921, at the invitation of the Serbian Patriarch Dimitry, Metropolitan Anthony moved to Serbia, and the Higher Administration of the Russian Church abroad moved there also. Around him all the hierarchs of the Russian Church and all parts of the Russian Church outside the boundaries of the Russian state then united. The churches which had been in the jurisdiction of the vicar of the Metropolitan of Petrograd were entrusted to Archbishop Evlogy, at first by the Temporary Higher Church Administration, and then by Patriarch Tikhon. The ecclesiastical missions in the Far East (China and Japan), and likewise those bishops who had emigrated from Russia to Manchuria, acknowledged themselves as subject to the Church Administration Abroad which had just been formed. In accordance with the desire of Patriarch Tikhon, one of the bishops who had arrived in Constantinople from the south of Russia (Metropolitan Platon) was assigned to America by the same Administration. To this Administration there were likewise subject the ecclesiastical mission in Jerusalem and a protopresbyter in Argentina.

          http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/roca_history.aspx

          The hierarchy of the Church Abroad appointed Archbishop Eulogius of Volhyn as the ruling bishop of the Russian churches in Western Europe , and Metropolitan Platon of Odessa as the Metropolitan of North America. These appointments by the Church Administration Abroad were confirmed by His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon in his Act of 26 March 1921.

          http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/enghistory/enhis_rocornafanail.html

          Metropolitan Platon was appointed diocesan head in America at the recommendation of Patriarch Tikhon, transmitted by an American by the name of Colton and Father Pashkovsky, the latter presenting the report to Metropolitan Antony on August 22/Sept 5, 1922. The Synod of Bishops decreed: “May it stand: in view of the expressed desire of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow and all Russia, that Metropolitan Platon of Kherson and Odessa accept the administration of the North American diocese, communicated by V. Rev. T. Pashkovsky who had arrived from Moscow in the report of July 1/14, 1922, No. 1, and in view of the consent of Archbishop Alexander to the temporary transfer of the administration of the diocese to Metropolitan Platon, Metropolitan Platon is considered temporary administrator of the North American Diocese.

          http://monasterypress.com/anonftp/pub/Rocatruth.pdf

          From 1922-1926, the Orthodox Church in North America was under the authority of the Synod Abroad. At first it was led by Archbishop Alexander (Nemolovsky), but in 1923, Patriarch Tikhon recommended that the Synod of the Church Abroad appoint Metropolitan Platon (Rozhdestvensky) to that diocese, who was sent there as temporary ruling bishop of the North American Diocese. After a year this appointment was confirmed by an ukase of Patriarch Tikhon, but in 1924, under pressure from the Soviet authorities, the Patriarch rescinded this appointment and even recalled Metropolitan Platon to Moscow to submit to an ecclesiastical court.

          http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/enghistory/enhis_rocorshukin.html

          However, Abp. Alexander continued to oversee the OCA until June 7, 1922, when he turned the Archdiocese over to its former bishop, Met. Platon, already resident again in the archdiocese, a transfer confirmed by both Patriarch St. Tikhon and the “Higher Church Authority.” ROCOR received its permission to organize from the Patriarchate of Serbia-in which canonical territory it was residing-on September 17, 1922.

          Met. Platon, however, did not stand in the same situation as the bishops in Karlovsky: unlike them, he resided in his own Metropolia, which organized itself with its own authority under the mandate of Ukaz 362 in November 1922, as Abp. Alexander had been confirmed. North America, canonically speaking, did not fall outside of Russia. Met. Platon did stand with the bishops of ROCOR against the usurpers coming from the “Living Church.” But “alongside,” not “under.” Coupled with the OCA’s standing under the Alaskan Cession Treaty, the OCA stood alongside the Churches of the Baltic Republics (including Finland) and Poland. Not the Russian bishops in exile in Serbia and Romania-and your account of

          Met Anastassy, in fact , did not actually “abandon” his diocese; it was taken over by the Romanian Church, and he was given the option to join the Romanian Church, which he declined.

          admits the difference.

          “why make a point of stating that ROCOR bishops were “monarchists?” Perhaps you can tell me”
          Sure can: unlike the All Russian Sobor of Pat. St. Tikhon, the ROCOR synod at Karlovsky decided to take what was God’s and render it to the cause of Caesar, i.e. the “Tsar from the House of Romanov.”

          • Isa Almisry says

            Btw, I use the term “OCA” for the period before 1970 the same way the Patriarchate of Moscow refers to the Church of Russia in 988.

            • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

              Sigh. ***Btw****, one needn’t justify the arbitrary and anachronistic use of “OCA” in writing of events before 1970. And the OCA never called itself “the Church OF America” so use of the justification ‘the same way” is likewise in error.
              The Synod of ROCOR took nothing from God in calling for the return of a Tsar from the House of Romanov.. Such exaggerations on one’s part diminish any rationality someone theoretically might find in the rest of one’s discussion. [Of course, there is no more “dynasty” or “house” of Romanov. The last Tsar was a scion of the dynasty of ‘Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov’ and had nary a drop of ethnic Russian DNA in him]. Are objections to the call from ROCOR of that day, like one’s virulent attacks against those who disapprove of V. Putin today, inspired by one’s notorious patriotism relative to the non-imperial state in today’s Russia? Some of us can’t forget the assertion that Stalin saved the Ukrainian language in Galicia….

              • Isa Almisry says

                The Synod of ROCOR took nothing from God in calling for the return of a Tsar from the House of Romanov.. Such exaggerations on one’s part diminish any rationality someone theoretically might find in the rest of one’s discussion. [Of course, there is no more “dynasty” or “house” of Romanov. The last Tsar was a scion of the dynasty of ‘Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov’ and had nary a drop of ethnic Russian DNA in him]. Are objections to the call from ROCOR of that day, like one’s virulent attacks against those who disapprove of V. Putin today, inspired by one’s notorious patriotism relative to the non-imperial state in today’s Russia? Some of us can’t forget the assertion that Stalin saved the Ukrainian language in Galicia

                It seems this paragraph aimed for sophistication, but stumbled into unintelligibility. To go on what seems to be the not-so-hidden agenda of objection:

                Calling for loyalty to the House of Romanov in Russia when it ruled with a member on the throne falls well within Orthodoxy. Demanding from outside the realm the restoration of a defunct dynasty which lacked a candidate and legitimacy-the Romanovs had given way to the Provisional Government-well. …”My Kingdom is not of this World.” Someone said that, and He didn’t give His Apostles the job of being kingmakers.

                “Ethnic Russian DNA.” That might explain Your Grace’s obsession with Nazis and affinity to Svoboda, but it has nothing to do with the Russian monarchy. Genetic studies shows that Rurik the font of Russian royalty was Germanic. St. Nicholas II fits right in. And since Russian is a language based ethnicity, it doesn’t have a drop of DNA.

                Whose notorious patriotism do you speak of, Your Grace?

                And Your Grace forgot it was a fact that Stalin saved the Ukrainian language in Galicia, opening the Ukrainian schools the Poles had closed as soon as he got there.

                As for Your Grace’s straining of gnats to dine on camel over the OCA’s name, “of” and “in” isn’t a homoousios/homoiousios distinction. Try to sink your teeth in it and you’re liable to bite your tongue.

                • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

                  Isa. The Church really cannot be OF anyplace in the world. Clement of Rome wrote from “the Church SOJOURNING in Rome.’ The distinction between “of” and “in” is an important one, my son.
                  The survival of the Ukrainian language did not and does not depend on Ukrainian schools at all, and Stalin’s re-opening of Ukrainian schools did not save the Ukrainian language!
                  Calling for the return of a Tsar of any ethnic group at all takes nothing from God.
                  None of St. Nicholas of Russia’s dna contained a trace ot the dna of any Russians or even of any
                  Eastern Slavs. Isa mentions some kind of ethnicity based on language! He actually wrote this; “Russian is a language-based ethnicity!”
                  No, Russian ethnicity is NOT BASED on the Russian language at all, ever.
                  Perhaps Isa was confusing the word “ethnicity” with the word “identity?”
                  I have no affinity for “Svoboda.”
                  I have no obsession with Nazis, and I did not bring up Svoboda.
                  When i wrote that St.Nicholas had no ethnic Russian dna, I referred to his having inherited no ethnic RUSSIAN PERSON’S dna whatsoever.
                  I’m not sure why Isa would think I would ever aim for sophistication, but I understand it if he admires and pursues it himself.
                  It seems to me if my message ‘stumbled into unintelligibility,’ then Isa’s attempted refutation of that same message, or even replying to it, is highly problematic.

                  Here’s the main realization of “unintelligibility” : “To go on what seems to be the not-so-hidden agenda of objection…’ What in the world is an “agenda of objection”, and how does one
                  GO on any agenda, ever?

                  • Isa Almisry says

                    “Isa. The Church really cannot be OF anyplace in the world. Clement of Rome wrote from “the Church SOJOURNING in Rome.’ The distinction between “of” and “in” is an important one, my son.”
                    Not on this point. And on your point, the OCA is correct on that point. So there is no point to Your Grace’s point of contention.

                    ‘The survival of the Ukrainian language did not and does not depend on Ukrainian schools at all”
                    Only with the development of its literary standard – and the promulgation of its use – did Ukrainian pass the point of no return against absorption into Russian as a dialect. It didn’t have Weinreich’s army and navy. That’s where Stalin came in.

                    “No, Russian ethnicity is NOT BASED on the Russian language at all, ever.”
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification_of_Ukraine
                    During Russification, was it a painful process, Your Grace, sticking that Russian DNA into the subjects of Russification.

                    “Perhaps Isa was confusing the word “ethnicity” with the word “identity?””
                    Perhapsa Isa isn’t the one suffering the confusion.

                    “I have no affinity for “Svoboda.””
                    Your Grace’s posts then.

                    “I have no obsession with Nazis, and I did not bring up Svoboda.”
                    You bring up Nazis and German terms (in an apparent connection) enough.

                    “When i wrote that St.Nicholas had no ethnic Russian dna, I referred to his having inherited no ethnic RUSSIAN PERSON’S dna whatsoever.”
                    And you failed to explain how that had any relevance whatsoever, Your Grace, as neither did Rurik or Oleg.

            • “Btw, I use the term “OCA” for the period before 1970 the same way the Patriarchate of Moscow refers to the Church of Russia in 988.”

              Except that the MP has a solid basis for this reference.

              “Rossiya”, “Rus'”, “Rusyn”, “Ruthenian”, “Belorussian”, etc. all derive from the name that was given to the leadership of the early Kievan state, basically Norse who mixed with Finns and Eastern Slavs. There was no “Ukraine” at this point. There were “Rus”” centered at Kiev. Then the Mongols totally annihilated Kiev, killing, deporting, enslaving everybody and leaving it a barren wasteland.

              The Rus’ moved toward the Northeast in order to be less susceptible to this type of invasion. Leaders in Vladimir. Novgorod and finally Moscow succeeded in making various compromises with the Mongols to secure some measure of autonomy and eventually independence. The Orthodox religious leadership of the “Rus'” made a similar migration of its “central offices”. Moscow emerged as the leader of the Rus’ after the Mongol period partly because of its role in collecting tribute.

              But this is all the history of one people, originally called the “Rus'”. Kiev was eventually resettled. It never regained its former glory but was relegated to being a kind of “frontier” (in old Russian “ukraina”) territory and haven for mercenaries, often loyal to the tsar, sometimes not.

              “The Orthodox Church in America” was a name designed according to the particular oddities of the tomos granted by Moscow. It was not named the “American Orthodox Church” or the “Orthodox Church of America” because it was conceived of as a provisionally autocephalous entity. That is, no one expected it to be immediately recognized even by the other Orthodox inside the United States (which is odd) but only over some longer period of time – hence “in” America.

              This has precious little to do with the Church of Russia. Prior to the time the MP became compromised, the Russian Church in America was just that, an integral part of the Russian Orthodox Church. When the MP became compromised, the Church Abroad convened a synod, of which what later became known as “the Metropolia” was a part, to govern the Russian Church outside of the territory dominated by the Bolsheviks. This was the highest authority in the Russian Orthodox Church, the MP having been compromised. This did not mean that the MP’s mysteries had no grace, just that it was not free to make decisions according to Tradition. The Bolsheviks killed or broke its leadership – period.

              So, from 1920-1926, the “churches of Russian Orthodox origin” in the US were under the omophorion of the Synod Abroad. Up until this point, the Russian Orthodox in America had no independent existence as any particular entity. One could call them this or that, but they were part of the Russian Orthodox Church (whether as a missionary diocese, an archdiocese, etc.). From 1927-1934 and again from 1946-1970, part of the Russian Orthodox Church located in America broke away from the ROC and became the “Metropolia”. It is no coincidence that this first schism was led by Met. Platon an archfoe of Met. Antony Khrapovitsky, the leader of the Church Abroad, who had earlier called Platon to task for his management of a seminary in Russia. Nor is it a coincidence that this first schism ended with the death of Met. Platon.

              Nor is it a coincidence that this breakaway section of the Church Abroad had been strongly influenced by the sentiments of many Ukrainian ex-Cathollics brought in by Fr. Alexis Toth. These people deeply resented Great Russian leadership and wanted “their own thing”, rules be damned.

              Sound familiar?

              So, they couldn’t get along with the Synod Abroad, they couldn’t get along with Moscow after WWII (Moscow would not meet their demands) and they refused to consider autonomous status under Moscow even in 1970 despite the fact that they had not been in communion with the Mother Church presumably granting them autocephaly in decades.

              If that sounds like self-will run riot, well, it is. If it sounds like the “mercurial” antics of the current mob ruling Ukraine, well, it is.

              http://risu.org.ua/en/index/all_news/orthodox/orthodox_world/55551/

              You will notice that the signatories of the above letter are all either in the OCA or affiliated with St. Vlad’s.

              • Isa Almisry says

                “Btw, I use the term “OCA” for the period before 1970 the same way the Patriarchate of Moscow refers to the Church of Russia in 988.”

                Except that the MP has a solid basis for this reference.

                As does the OCA: as the Metropolitan of Kiev enthrones the Patriarch of Moscow, so too the Bishop of Sitka and Alaska enthrones the Metropolitan of the OCA.
                Who enthrones the First Hierarch of ROCOR?

                “There was no “Ukraine” at this point.”
                Nor any “Russia” at the time either. Belarus had already come into existence by its union with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the foundations of Ukraine had already been laid in Halych-Volhynia and Kiev.
                Actually, Russia did exist: the Kingdom of Halych-Volhynia bore the title “Kingdom of Russia” (Regnum Russie [sic]).
                http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Alex_K_Yuri_Boleslav_seal.png

                Novgorod and finally Moscow succeeded in making various compromises with the Mongols to secure some measure of autonomy and eventually independence.

                Prior to the time the MP became compromised, the Russian Church in America was just that, an integral part of the Russian Orthodox Church. When the MP became compromised, the Church Abroad convened a synod, of which what later became known as “the Metropolia” was a part, to govern the Russian Church outside of the territory dominated by the Bolsheviks. This was the highest authority in the Russian Orthodox Church, the MP having been compromised….The Metropolia simply decided they no longer wanted to be part of the Church of Russia, played both ends against the middle in order to efffectuate this plan, and finally bribed a completely compromised Patriarchate to grant it an autocephaly recognized by no one but those churches under atheistic domination

                LOL The Uniates, Phanariots and Filoretists love your “reasoning.”

                “Prior to the time the MP became compromised”
                You mean, prior to 1717?

                “But this is all the history of one people, originally called the “Rus’”. Kiev was eventually resettled. It never regained its former glory but was relegated to being a kind of “frontier” (in old Russian “ukraina”) territory and haven for mercenaries, often loyal to the tsar, sometimes not.”
                Not quite the backwater you make it out to be after 1633, when Met. St. Peter Movila rebuilt Kiev, re-established the Metropolitanate of Kiev, and established Ukraine. Moscow adopted the Kievan recension of Church Slavonic, not the reverse, and Ukrainian clerics dominated the Patriarchate of Moscow from the 17th through the 18th century, as the Kiev Academy led higher education in the Russian Empire. Printing started in Moscow, but it had to go to Ukraine to catch on, Kiev printing the standard liturgical books and producing the Orthodox Catechism adopted by the whole Orthodox Church. The Antiochian delegation passing through Ukraine to Moscow in 1655 noted that even the villagers in Ukraine could read or write. I’m not aware of such a claim for Russia at the time-or anytime two centuries later.

              • Isa Almisry says

                ““The Orthodox Church in America” was a name designed according to the particular oddities of the tomos granted by Moscow. It was not named the “American Orthodox Church” or the “Orthodox Church of America””

                “The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia”
                “To all that are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints”
                “To the Church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, and called to be saints, with all those in every place who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours.”
                “To the Church of God in Corinth, together with all his holy people throughout Achaia”
                “To the churches in Galatia”
                “To God’s holy people in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus”
                “To all God’s holy people in Christ Jesus in Philippi, together with the bishops and deacons”
                “To God’s holy people in Colossae, the faithful brothers and sisters in Christ”
                “”To the angel of the Church in Ephesus… to the angel of the Church in Smyrna write…And to the angel of the Church in Pergamum…And to the angel of the Church in Thyatira…And to the angel of the Church in Sardis…to the angel of the Church in Philadelphia…to the angel of the church in Laodicea”
                “The Church of God which sojourns in Rome, to the Church of God sojourning in Corinth”
                “To the Church which is in Ephesus, in Asia…to the [Church] blessed in the grace of God the Father, in Jesus Christ our Saviour, in whom I salute the Church which is in Magnesia, near the Meander…to the holy Church which is in Tralles, in Asia, beloved of God, the Father of Jesus Christ, elect, and worthy of God, possessing peace through the flesh, and blood, and passion of Jesus Christ…to the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans…to the Church of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, which is in Philadelphia, in Asia, which has obtained mercy, and is established in the harmony of God, and rejoices unceasingly in the passion of our Lord, and is filled with all mercy through his resurrection…to the Church of God the Father, and of the beloved Jesus Christ, which has through mercy obtained every kind of gift, which is filled with faith and love, and is deficient in no gift, most worthy of God, and adorned with holiness: the Church which is in Smyrna, in Asia…”

                ” the churches which have been built in the ceded territory by the Russian government, shall remain the property of such members of the Greek Oriental Church resident in the territory, as may choose to worship therein”
                it seems the Orthodox Church in America is in good company. Certainly better than the Orthodox Church outside America ;).

                ““The Orthodox Church in America” was a name designed according to the particular oddities of the tomos granted by Moscow.”
                The 14th All American Sobor/1st All American Council, in receiving the Tomos, made the change from the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America, to the Orthodox Church in America, to send its “Message to All Orthodox Christians in America”

                We have the same faith, the same Tradition, the same hope, the same mission. We should then constitute one Church, visibly, organically, fully. Such is the requirement of our Orthodox Faith and we know that always and everywhere the Orthodox Church has existed as one Church. There can, therefore, be no excuse for our jurisdictional divisions, alienation from one another, and parochialism. The removal of such divisions and the organic unity of all Orthodox in America is the goal of our Church and we invite you to become part of the unity.

                http://books.google.com/books?id=BdigOEja038C&pg=PA556&lpg=PA556&dq=%22Message+to+All+Orthodox+Christians+in+America%22&source=bl&ots=hcHCZii66o&sig=fisrI7Wkb-AcOsrJl5fzAGtVIhw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o-o2U5zfD4PJsQSQ04GwDA&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Message%20to%20All%20Orthodox%20Christians%20in%20America%22&f=false
                A better choice would have been “Orthodox Church in North America”

                “It was not named the “American Orthodox Church” or the “Orthodox Church of America” because it was conceived of as a provisionally autocephalous entity.”
                Define “provisionally. Use as few Greek words as possible.
                Because this is the definition of autocephaly the Patriarchate of Moscow goes by:

                As the result of the agreement, hereinafter set forth, between the Patriarchate and the Metropolia, the Metropolia, as a branch of the Russian Orthodox Church (in 1793 – Orthodox Mission, in 1858 – Vicariate on the Sitka Island, in 1870 – the Aleutian and American Diocese, in 1900 – the Aleutian and North American Diocese, in 1907 – “Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in North America in the hierarchical jurisdiction of the Russian Church”) shall be declared an Autocephalous Church and shall have as its name “The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America.”
                By “autocephaly,” which is confirmed in this decision, it is understood that the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall:
                be independent and self-governing with the right of electing her own Primate and all her bishops, without confirmation or the right of veto over such elections on the part of any other church organization or representative of the Eastern Orthodox or any other confession;
                firmly and inalterably preserve the divine dogmas, being guided in her life by the sacred Canons of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of Christ and governed in accordance with her own Statute as accepted, augmented or amended from time to time by her own highest legislative and executive organ;
                maintain direct relations with all other Churches and confessions, Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike;
                enjoy all the authority, privileges and rights usually inherent in the term “autocephaly” in the canonical tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church, including the right of preparing and consecrating Holy Chrism.

                http://oca.org/history-archives/aacs/the-1st-all-american-council
                And, as the Phanar admitted in the seating of the ACOBNCA, OCA remains “The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America,” a fact the GOA spokeman had an awkward time talking around. Otherwise, Met. Jonah would have been Vice Chairman ex officio.

                Is the autocephaly of Poland, the Czech Lands and Slovakia also “provisional”? How about Georgia? After all they “finally bribed a completely compromised Patriarchate to grant it an autocephaly recognized by no one but those churches under atheistic domination.” But then again, they can fall back on the Tomoi of Autocephaly sent from the Phanar, who wasn’t under “atheistic domination.” It also issued its Tomos of 1908 – but where would that leave ROCOR?

                ROCOR constantly emphasized that its “Higher Church Authority” was “temporary.”

                THE TEMPORARY (PROVISIONAL) STATUTES
                OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA
                (Confirmed by the General Council of Bishops–9/22 & 11/24, September 1936.)
                I. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, which consists of the dioceses, ecclesiastical missions and churches which are located outside the boundaries of Russia , is an indissoluble part of the Russian Orthodox Church, temporarily existing on autonomous principles.

                http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enov_polozhenie1936.html
                (I don’t see the word “provisional” in the Tomos of Autocephaly for the OCA. Can you point it out?)
                Since it was “termporary,” why is it still around?

                • I meant that the OCA’s autocephaly was provisional in the sense it wasn’t recognized by anyone in America other than itself and a few minor joiners. The idea was that “if you build it, they will come”. It was exhorted not to insist on its autocephaly or excommunicate those that did not respect or recognize it (see the continuing saga of Antioch, Jerusalem and Qatar for how canonical territory is defended), assuming that in time everyone would come around to its way of thinking. This turned out to be (engaging in a bit of British understatement) “not entirely successful.”

                  As far as ROCOR is concerned, it was indeed temporary. And, now it is neither more nor less than the autonomous province in America of the Church of Russia. You might ask Moscow why it chooses to continue to state that the OCA is autocephalous yet maintains an entire autonomous daughter church on its supposed territory. I for one am not interested in the answer to such questions.

                  Prior to the reunification of the two parts of the Church of Russia (as the MP referred to the MP and ROCOR), ROCOR could not recognize the MP as being free to exercise governance of the ROC outside of the Soviet Union. Temporarily, ROCOR did this. That ended on May 17, 2007.

              • Isa Almisry says

                ““The Orthodox Church in America” was a name designed according to the particular oddities of the tomos granted by Moscow….That is, no one expected it to be immediately recognized even by the other Orthodox inside the United States”
                And yet it was: a couple Greek parishes joined. Within a year the Albanian Archdiocese, Mother Church of the Church of Albania, returned to the OCA. The Romanian Archdiocese had joined before the reception of Autocephaly. A few years after Autocephaly, of course, the Bulgarians joined the OCA.
                As for your Greek friends:

                the fact that a part of the Greeks come from the Turkish Empire and the other part from the Kingdom of Greece have given rise to many dissensions and prevented the nomination of a Greek bishop for the United States, neither the patriarch nor the Synod wishing to cede such an appointment to the other. On the other hand, they both decline to admit or recognize the authority of the Russian bishops here.

                http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06772a.htm
                That “Russian bishop here” was Abp. then Pat. St. Tikhon.

                “(which is odd) but only over some longer period of time”
                Odd how? Certainly not in sense of “without precedent”: when Georgia reclaimed its wrongfully taken autocephaly, it was conceded jurisdiction over all Georgians in the Russian Republic, while the former Exarch of Georgia – at the time none other than Met. Platon – was reconstituted as the Exarch of the Caucasus, with jurisdiction over all the Russians and non-Georgians in Georgia. The Ossetians and Abkhazarians were given the choice between the Exarch and the Catholicos. Although only Georgia and Russia were involved, it still took 26 years to sort it all out, and another 47 years before the Phanar, not being one of “those churches under atheistic domination,” recognized the settlement.

                It took 141 years for the autocephaly of Russia to be recognized, and the Phanariots, Uniates and Filaretists will point out that happened then only because the EP was compromised (being under virtual house arrest in Moscow) and bribed. So the OCA still has 138 years to go before it has to worry.

                Btw, is the autocephaly of Bulgaria “provitional”? It wasn’t recognized until 1945, when all those Churches, including it, came “under atheistic domination.”

                “This has precious little to do with the Church of Russia.”

                Tomos of Autocephaly
                by the Mercy of God,
                Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia

                For a number of years, the Russian Orthodox Church has observed with maternal love and concern the development of the Orthodox Church which she planted on the American continent. In the last few decades she has sorrowfully witnessed the unfortunate appearance there of a pluralism of ecclesiastical jurisdictions, a temporary phenomenon, and by no means a permanent norm of the canonical organization of the Orthodox Church in America, since it is contrary to the nature of Orthodox canonical ecclesiastical unity.

                The Holy Russian Orthodox Church, striving for the good of the Church, has directed her efforts toward the normalization of relations among the various ecclesiastical jurisdictions in America, particularly by negotiating with the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America, concerning the possibility of granting autocephaly to this Church in the hope that this might serve the good of the Orthodox Church in America and the glory of God.

                In her striving for the peace of Christ, which has universal significance for the life of man; desiring to build a peaceful and creative church life, and to suppress scandalous ecclesiastical divisions; hoping that this act would be beneficial to the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of Christ and would make possible the development among the local parts of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of such relations which would be founded on the firm ties of the one Orthodox Faith and the love that the Lord Jesus Christ willed; keeping in mind that this act would serve the welfare of universal, mutual cooperation; taking into consideration the petition of the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Metropolitanate of North America, which expressed the opinion and desire of all her faithful children; acknowledging as good for Orthodoxy in America the independent and self-sustaining existence of said Metropolitanate, which now represents a mature ecclesiastical organism possessing all that is necessary for successful further growth. Our Humility together with the Sacred Synod and all the venerable Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church, who have signified their agreement in writing, having examined the said petition, in sincere love grant autocephaly to the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America…Signed in the city of Moscow, April 10, 1970.

                ALEXIS, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia
                Members of the Holy Synod:
                Metropolitan of Krutitsy and Kolomna, PIMEN
                Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod, NIKODIM
                Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia, Exarch of the Ukraine, PHILARET
                Metropolitan of Orel and Briansk, PALLADY
                Metropolitan of Alma-Ata and Khazakstan, IOSIF
                Metropolitan of Yaroslavl and Rostov, IOANN
                Archbishop of Irkutsk and Tchita, VENIAMIN
                Archbishop of Ufa and Sterlitamak, IOV
                Archbishop of New York and the Aleutians, Exarch of North and South America, IONAFAN
                Bishop of Kishinev and Moldavia, VARFOLOMEY
                Bishop of Tula and Belev, IUVENALY
                Bishop of Chernigov and Nezhinsk, VLADIMIR
                Bishop of Smolensk and Viazmia, GEDEON
                Chancellor of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan of Tallin and Estonia, ALEXEI

                http://oca.org/history-archives/tomos-of-autocephaly

                Hmmm. That last name looks familiar.

                We, the humble Alexy II, by God’s mercy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, jointly with the Eminent Members of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, having gathered at a meeting of the Holy Synod (date) in the God-preserved city of Moscow; and the humble Laurus, Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York, First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, jointly with the Eminent Bishops, members of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, having gathered (time, place)

                http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html

                Btw, will the Russian Church abolish its Moldovan Orthodox Church, as it was detached from the Church of Romania when the Patriarchate of Romania was compromised and “under atheist domination”?

                “Prior to the time the MP became compromised…This was the highest authority in the Russian Orthodox Church, the MP having been compromised. This did not mean that the MP’s mysteries had no grace, just that it was not free to make decisions according to Tradition. The Bolsheviks killed or broke its leadership – period.”
                LOL.
                Does your Donatist can-opener also serve as a worm strainer? There are literally volumes – two centuries worth – of decisions not made according to Tradition according to your standard: what can be less free than being defunct, its leadership being replaced by the state functionary, the Ober-Prokurator?
                http://krotov.info/lib_sec/16_p/ol/noe_sobr_post_pravosl.htm
                That would include, by the way, all the decisions on the evangelization of Russian America and the Russian Archdiocese of North America. Which would mean that the Phanar’s Tomos of 1908 would constitute the definite document on North America-where does that leave ROCOR, being “outside the canonical borders of the Moscow Patriarchate.”
                You do know canon 28 of Chalcedon in Russian, no?

                We have quite a few canons on Donatism. We also have a number on bishops going outside their jurisdiction. For example:

                Bishops must not leave their own diocese and go over to churches beyond its boundaries; but, on the contrary, in accordance with the Canons, let the Bishop of Alexandria administer the affairs of Egypt only, let the Bishops of the East govern the Eastern Church only, the priorities granted to the church of the Antiochians in the Nicene Canons being kept inviolate, and let the Bishops of the Asian diocese (or administrative domain) administer only the affairs of the Asian church, and let those of the Pontic diocese look after the affairs of the diocese of Pontus only, and let those of the Thracian diocese manage the affairs of the Thracian diocese only. Let Bishops not go beyond their own province to carry out an ordination or any other ecclesiastical services unless (officially) summoned thither. When the Canon prescribed in regard to dioceses (or administrative provinces) is duly kept, it is evident that the synod of each province will confine itself to the affairs of that particular province, in accordance with the regulations decreed in Nicaea. But the churches of God that are situated in territories belonging to barbarian nations must be administered in accordance with the customary practice of the Fathers.

                Canon II of the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I.

                “the Church Abroad convened a synod…to govern the Russian Church outside of the territory dominated by the Bolsheviks”
                And yet it didn’t.
                Bessarabia reunited with the Church of Romania, and Met. Anastasy was sent packing.
                Galicia and Volhynia remained free of the Bolsheviks. And free of Met. Anthony of Kiev’s control.
                Met. St. Tikhon’s old see of Vilnius enjoyed freedom from Bolsheviks under Warsaw, not Karlovski.
                Estonia and Finland turned to the EP of Constantinople, not the First Hierarch of ROCOR.
                Japan remained free of Bolsheviks but freely chose “domination” from the MP.
                And the already existing Archdiocese of North America and the Aleutians received its mandate for action in Ukaz 362 on November 20, 1920. Not from the interpretation thereof from a ROCOR not yet in existence.

          • “’why make a point of stating that ROCOR bishops were ‘monarchists?’ Perhaps you can tell me’”
            “Sure can: unlike the All Russian Sobor of Pat. St. Tikhon, the ROCOR synod at Karlovsky decided to take what was God’s and render it to the cause of Caesar, i.e. the ‘Tsar from the House of Romanov.’”

            Of course Isa, just like all the Byzantine and Russian bishops before them, by endorsing monarchy and empire, “took what was God’s and rendered it to Caesar”.

            These discussions are silly. The evidence supports that ROCOR was acknowledged by the Metropolia as the highest church authority in the Russian Church. This is attested in court documents from failed attempts by Metropolia hierarchs to seize ROCOR parishes. The Metropolia was a part of ROCOR from 1920-1926 and from 1935-1946. There’s just too much evidence to support this for any other position to hold water, Metropolia/OCA lies notwithstanding.

            Of course, it makes little difference now. Much of the extremely odd history of the OCA/Metropolia is traceable to a) Met. Platon (the childish, temperamental proponent of a proven forgery) and the ethnic rivalry of Carpathorussians and Great Russians. The Metropolia simply decided they no longer wanted to be part of the Church of Russia, played both ends against the middle in order to efffectuate this plan, and finally bribed a completely compromised Patriarchate to grant it an autocephaly recognized by no one but those churches under atheistic domination and effectively repudiated by the actions of its Mother Church (free at last) in contemporary reality.

            Now ROCOR is well aware of this history, as is Constantinople. OCA as an autocephalous American Orthodox Church is not going to work out. It is what it is. I have many friends in the OCA. They are not to blame for the follies of previous generations. Most are fine Orthodox Christians though they have often been lied to by their own clergy as to the history of the OCA.

            Also, I have always been amused as to the “abandoning their sees” charge. I do not hear these people accusing the Patriarchs of Antioch of abandoning their see by moving their permanent residence to Damascus. Seems like common sense given the Turk’s attitude toward Christians. They’ve tried to kill Pat. Bartholomew no less than 7 times by my count. Sure, by all means call a council with jurisdiction to hear the charge of “abandonment”. Otherwise, let it go as a nullity. It hasn’t even been consistently enforced in prior Orthodox history.

            • Isa Almisry says

              “Of course Isa, just like all the Byzantine and Russian bishops before them, by endorsing monarchy and empire, “took what was God’s and rendered it to Caesar”.”
              The Caesars were ruling. The Romanovs were not. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s doesn’t mean you have to demand for Caesar what he had lost. The All Russian Sobor abjured the Czar. The Karlovsky synod had no business demanding loyalty to him

              “This is attested in court documents from failed attempts by Metropolia hierarchs to seize ROCOR parishes.”
              You forget the attempts of ROCOR to seize OCA parishes: that has left a trail of court documents too.
              Where ROCOR does not show up is anywhere in the Cathedrals of North America-the OCA has always had the Cathedrals of Kodiak, Sitka and San Francisco. St. Tikhon’s Cathedral of St. Nicholas in NYC went back and forth between the OCA and the exarch from Moscow, not Karlovsky.

              “These discussions are silly.”
              They are, as the Tomos and the Act of Canonical Communion, per the final clause of Ukaze 362, have settled the issue.

              “The evidence supports that ROCOR was acknowledged by the Metropolia as the highest church authority in the Russian Church.”
              Alas! That authority claimed had no canonical basis in North America (or Finland, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland). The OCA was in existence on November 20, 1920. ROCOR was not. The Highest Church Authority in the Russian Church was, and is, the Patriarch, restored after two centuries of suppression by the Romanovs. The appeal of Met. Anthony to Canon 37 of the Pentheke Council

              Since at various times there have been inroads of barbarians, and many cities have as a result become subject to the iniquitous, so that the President of such a city has been unable after ordination to take possession of his own throne and to be installed therein in sacerdotal state, and thus to act and employ himself in accordance with the prevailing custom of bestowing ordinations and to do everything that pertains to a Bishop, we, being determined to safeguard the rights of the priesthood to honor and respect, and being nowise disposed to consent to any curtailment of ecclesiastical rights or to allow the heathen influence to be exercised over those so ordained, and on account of the cause recited above since they are unable to gain possession of their own thrones, we have seen fit to concur in decreeing that no prejudice shall result therefrom to prevent them from bestowing ordinations canonically upon various Clergymen, and from employing the authority of the presidency in accordance with the same definition; and that any and all administration advanced by them shall be sure and duly established. For the definition of economy shall not be restricted or limited by the circumstances of necessity or be circumscribed as touching its rigor.

              for the Karlovski authority had no application in North America, as Met. Platon was in possession of his own throne.

              I remember attending the consecration of the ROCOR Cathedral, when someone asked me who the presiding hierarch was. I said I think it is the First Hierarch “the guy they think is the Patriarch of Moscow.”

              Now, that wasn’t exactly true, but it did-and does-underline the abnormality of ROCOR, one that was coming to the fore at the time I made the statement, when the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia was trying to set up the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia Inside Russia, with the (then) recent erection of a bishoprick for the Suzdal schism (which eventually, on the basis of Ukaze No. 362-or so they claimed-set up their own autonomy from ROCOR). For decades ROCOR claimed to be the free part of the Russian Orthodox Church, even as, as Alexander Solzhenitsyn pointed out, it increasingly became the voice of “solidarity with a mysterious, sinless, but also bodiless catacomb.” To the critics of Patriarch Pimen, I would concede my agreement with much of what they had to say-with the caveat that “but I don’t have the weight of a hundred million souls on me.” And neither did Met. Vitaly.

              Nor, as history marched on, did it appear that he would. Communism collapsed, but the ROCOR synod did not go back to Holy Mother Russia, as the Cypriot Church of the 39th Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council did. Many in ROCOR offered Ecumenism as an excuse, but few bought it, as the ROCORIR (Inside Russia) degenerated into squabbling factions thinking themselves not only too good for the Patriarchate but the catacomb Churches as well. The Neo-Donatist claims that irretrievably compromised “Sergianists” composed the PoM drowned in the flood of the swelling streams of baptisms in the PoM, especially with the Millenium of the Baptism of Rus’.

              ROCOR had taken Ukaze 362 as the new “Spiritual Regulation” as its mandate to act as the new “Most Holy Governing Synod” in the place of the Patriarch of Moscow. However Patriarch St. Tikhon and the All Russian Sobor put an end to that nonsense, and restored the canonical ecclesiology of Orthodoxy. In Ukaze 362 Pat. St. Tikhon placed the emphasis on the diocesan bishop, confirming the conciliarity of the All Russian Sobor (recently affirmed by the PoM at the Synaxis at the Phanar) over the autocracy of the “Most Holy Governing Synod.” The existing All American Sobor of the Archdiocese of North America embraced the fomer. ROCOR – once it came into existence – embraced the latter.

              “The Metropolia was a part of ROCOR from 1920-1926 and from 1935-1946.”
              In 1920 there was no ROCOR in existence that the existing OCA could have been a part of.
              In 1920 the OCA was part of the Russian Orthodox Church, canonically in Russia (the Alaskan Cession Treaty ceded sovereignty to the US, but OCA retained jurisdiction (a situation somewhat similar to Cuban sovereignty but US jurisdiction in Guantanamo Bay)), as were the Churches of Japan, the Baltic Republics (including Finland), Poland, Ukraine and the non-Georgian Orthodox communities of the Caucasus-Met. Platon himself having been ‘Exarch of Georgia and ex officio member of the Most Holy Governing Synod until yielding to the restored autocephalous Catholicos-Patriarch.
              Once ROCOR came into existence, these various parts of the Russian Orthodox Church had various levels of cooperation with it. China fully integrated into it; Japan had nothing to do with it. The OCA came in between. Some, like Finland, followed Georgia’s lead and opted out of the ROC altogether.
              ROCOR claimed the option to act independently of the Central Ecclesiastical Authority of the Patriarchate of Moscow; the OCA did not (which is how it lost St. Nicholas in the Supreme Court). On what basis could the Karlovski Synod deny the OCA the option of acting independently of it?

              “There’s just too much evidence to support this for any other position to hold water”
              Except the Sacred Canons of the Orthodox Church, under which the OCA has the standing ROCOR lacks.

              “Metropolia/OCA lies notwithstanding.”
              One need only see what the ROCOR puts out itself to substantiate the truth of the OCA.

              • Fine Isa, you are impervious to the objective truth of the situation. The MP reconcilled with what it considered the “other part” of the Russian Orthodox Church. If you wish to support your team and perpetuate the misinformation of the OCA in the pursuit of its claimed autocephaly, be my guest.

                It affects the Church of Russia precious little if at all. Really, the hierarchs of the Metropolia did the Church of Russia a favor by ridding it of a troublesome little nest. If it survives, beautiful. ROCOR will carry on in America. If it doesn’t, beautiful. ROCOR will carry on in America.

                I’m sure that is what Moscow and ROCOR are thinking at this point.

                Peace be with you all in whatever you decide to do.

                http://orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR_and_OCA

                • George Michalopulos says

                  Misha, the argument isn’t between the OCA and ROCOR at this point, but IMHO whether or not the OCA has frittered away its moral authority.

                  • Isa Almisry says

                    “the argument isn’t between the OCA and ROCOR at this point, but IMHO whether or not the OCA has frittered away its moral authority.”
                    There is no argument: it did.

                  • George,

                    The history of pathological lying is relevant in that the Metropolia/OCA did it earlier regarding ROCOR and then in covering up the misdeeds of its synod later, then in “defenestrating” Met. Jonah. It’s an institutional habit.

                    I think it’s probably time to ask the question as to whether a jurisdiction that falsified its own history so willfully, knowingly and maliciously to the detriment of other Orthodox Christians, which habitually accuses its critics of being donatists or in need of psychiatric treatment, etc., has any hope of uniting American Orthodoxy. Whatever ROCOR’s faults, and it certainly has them, it does not place itself in the position of being a candidate for the flagship of American Orthodoxy, an alleged autocephalous American Church.

                    The OCA has given everyone who has any inclination to reject it so much ammunition that actually succeeding in its project is now out of the question.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      ” Whatever ROCOR’s faults, and it certainly has them, it does not place itself in the position of being a candidate for the flagship of American Orthodoxy, an alleged autocephalous American Church.”
                      ROCOR is too busy being the “True Russian Church” to bother itself with the Local American Church.

                      “The OCA has given everyone who has any inclination to reject it so much ammunition that actually succeeding in its project is now out of the question.”
                      And yet it is still around.

                    • In case you missed it, Isa, ROCOR is the true Russian Church. It was the free part during the Bolshevik period and is joined now again with Moscow. It doesn’t get any “truer” than that.

                      As for the OCA, we’ll see how long it lasts. 43 years is nothing in Orthodox time.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “In case you missed it, Isa, ROCOR is the true Russian Church.”
                      Then it should have elected the primate of the Russian Church, or at least a locum tenens, at least from the repose of the Passion-Bearer Patriarch St. Tikhon, in which case the example of Abp. John of All Cyprus and Canon 39 of the Pentheke Council would give it authority – or at least claims to it.
                      But it didn’t do that, did it?

                      “It was the free part during the Bolshevik period”
                      Finland was free (and a state Church), but not part of ROCOR.
                      Estonia was free – in fact Patriarch Alexei of blessed memory was raised in it – but not in ROCOR.
                      Latvia was free, but not in ROCOR. In fact, blessed Abp. John of RIga and All Latvia, leaving when Stalin reasserted control over it, joined the OCA, as bishop of Chicago: his adopted son Fr. Sergei long served at its Cathedral after the archbishop’s repose, and after Fr. Sergei’s wife’s repose, he has entered the monastery in the Russian Church in Russia to care for the Tikhvin Mother of God, as he and his adopted father did in the OCA Cathedral so many years (where, btw, Pat. Alexei venerated it in 1994 – I still have the nifty icon they gave out at the occasion, complete with riasa).
                      Lithuania and Poland, the old diocese of Pat. St. Tikhon before and after his tenure in North America, was free, but not in ROCOR.
                      Ukraine for a while was free – in fact when Met. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) was elected as Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia, but never was confirmed and enthroned as he antagonized the Ukrainians needlessly with Russian chauvinism (something that Abp. Alexander did in North America: in Abp. Alexander it was a direct about face in policy – he had been forming the see of Winnipeg and All Canada into a Ukrainian diocese – but with Met. Anthony it might have a life long affliction, but I’m not sure what was the nature of his problems with the locals in Kharkiv when he was enthroned there under the Czar. Wasn’t it you who mentioned once (or twice, or more) that the OCA couldn’t get along?). This freedom was used to form the “Temporary Higher Church Authority of South-East Russia” – though on what canonical basis is not clear – the precursor of ROCOR, although its lack of canonical foundation appeared when it dissolved with the removal to Constantinople.
                      Moldova was free, not under ROCOR, but under the Romanian Orthodox Church in Romania, to which Bessarabia returned to the constituent region of Moldavia. Met. Anastasy didn’t like that he couldn’t play Russian Lord when the Romanians were masters of – or should I say “in” (happily Romanian combines both in one preposition “din”) – their own house, and so he abandoned his see, though, like the unenthroned Met. Anthony “of Kiev and Galicia”, kept the title of a see occupied by someone else, so he could be the “Metropolitan of Kishinev (or rather, Chișinău) and Khotin (or rather Hotin/Khotyn)” Outside of Chișinău and Hotin, to take his place on the Holy Synod of the Synod without sees, without their primate, outside their jurisdiction.
                      Japan was free, but not under ROCOR – they stayed with Bolshevik occupied Moscow, which elevated its Archbishop Sergius to Metropolitan in 1931. The submission to ROCOR came when the Imperial authorities banned foreigners to head Church organizations, and a faction ironically turned to the Russian Church Outside of Russia to keep the Japanese Church inside Japan in Japanese hands: the ROCOR insistence on Church freedom being laid aside so it could collude with the Imperialist authorities and consecrate a Japanese, Archpriest John Ono, in Harbin (i.e. outside of Japan, but under Japanese Shinto domination) as Archbishop Nicholas Ono of Tokyo. To match the irony, the legitimate Archbishop and Metropolitan Sergius used the monstrous model of the Most Holy Governing Synod (the de facto model of the Karlovci Synod) and appointed a layman as the Torii, the Japanese equivalent of the Ober-Prokurator of the MHGS, and circumvented the law. At ithe fall of the Imperialist regime, Abp. Nicholas submitted to the Moscow Patriarchate, but later reconciled to Abp.& Met. Sergius’ canonical successor, Abp. Benjamin (Basalyga) (an interesting combination, as Abp. Nicholas was the first Japanese born Orthodox bishop, and Abp. Benjamin was the first American born Orthodox bishop): Met. Platon’s former personal secretary in the early 1920’s, Abp. Benjamin had attended the Karlovci “All Russian” Sobor” in 1938 as a delegate of the OCA. In 1951 OCA consecrated Ireney Bekish – who grew up free of the Bolsheviks but not under ROCOR, in Poland – as successor to Abp. Benjamin (who returned to his original see of Pittsburgh). Two decades latter, as successor and heir to Met. Leonty and the generation of Abp.-Pat. St. TIkhon, he received the Tomos of Autocephaly from Moscow, whose terms included the return of Japan to Moscow’s jurisdiction, which granted it autonomy: does ROCOR not recognize that autonomy?
                      And of course, North America was free of the Bolsheviks, but not under ROCOR. The only domination the Bolsheviks had was in US courts – the same ones that ROCOR seeks to prove its narrative. The Canadian courts (and many US ones) found the truth in OCA’s case.

                      Btw, does your concern about being “free” extend to the UGCC and the other uniates that the Bolsheviks forced into Orthodoxy?

                      “It doesn’t get any “truer” than that.”
                      LOL.

                      “As for the OCA, we’ll see how long it lasts. 43 years is nothing in Orthodox time.”
                      This son of Alexandria and Antioch is fully aware of that, which is why I don’t worry that the unanimous de facto recognition of the OCA autocephaly has not yet caught up with the plurality who do so de jure.

                • Isa Almisry says

                  “Fine Isa, you are impervious to the objective truth of the situation.”

                  Produce a single canon from the Pedalion or Komchaya Kniga authorizing a “Supreme Ecclesiastical Administration” without its primate and outside its boundaries, and I will gladly retract all I have written.

                  • Isa,

                    I think your argument is with the former leadership of the Metropolia who recognized ROCOR as the highest ecclesiastical authority of the Church of Russia, then broke with it, then lied about it repeatedly. Ask their successors and then you can ponder about whether they’re lying now or back then.

                    • Isa Almisry says

                      “I think your argument is with the former leadership of the Metropolia who recognized ROCOR as the highest ecclesiastical authority of the Church of Russia”

                      It might be, if they had (I take it you are referring still to Met. Platon, not Met. Theophilus). As was filed in New York court on November 8, 1922:

                      At this time the Supreme Church Administration Abroad, above referred to, was dissolved by the Patriarch through a resolution of the Holy Synod in Moscow. This resolution is reported in the issue of the American Orthodox Messenger of September 30, 192.2. The resolution was passed at a meeting on April 10, 1922-, but did not reach places abroad until considerably later. The local church authorities, however, that is, the three bishops, Alexander [Nemolovski], deponent [Stephan Dzubay] and Euphemius [Aftimus Ofiesh], had refused to recognize this Supreme Church Administration abroad and decided that they would obey only the Patriarch. This resolution is published in said American Orthodox Messenger of June 9, 1922, the official church paper.
                      After the dissolution of this body [i.e. ROCOR] the refugee bishops in Europe, without any authority, made and organized the provisional bishops’ Synod referred to in Exhibit “C” attached to the moving papers. These bishops not only have no authority in America and their Synod is not recognized by the Patriarch, but the diocesan council in America, at a meeting of September 29, 1922, the published report of which is signed by the plaintiff himself, [i.e. Met. Platon] declared that the North American Diocese never consented to be subject to this bishops’ council abroad, so that when the plaintiff appeals to this bishops’ council for support he is appealing to a body, which is not only utterly without authority, but which he [Met. Platon] himself, in company with the local diocesan council, has refused to recognize.

                      http://books.google.com/books?id=4hHTlKl3BBgC&pg=PA33&dq=%22he+himself,+in+company+with+the+local+diocesan+council,+has+refused+to+recognize.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cv05U6_KLuqe2QXmrIGQDg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22he%20himself%2C%20in%20company%20with%20the%20local%20diocesan%20council%2C%20has%20refused%20to%20recognize.&f=false
                      I still, however, would not be able to accept that a bishop could yield the inalienable authority, power, rights and responsibilities given to his office by the Sacred Canons over to an authority not only without basis in the Sacred Canons, but constituting a direct contradiction to them.

            • Isa Almisry says

              “Of course, it makes little difference now. Much of the extremely odd history of the OCA/Metropolia is traceable to a) Met. Platon (the childish, temperamental proponent of a proven forgery)”
              This extremely odd obsession on the person Met. Platon – what is that traceable to, as the status of the OCA sprang from the status of her primate Abp. Alexander on November 20, 1920? Is it because that Abp. Alexander had no prior history with Met. Anthony that would make a nice narrative of nonsense?

              ROCOR records:

              The Synod of Bishops decreed: “May it stand: in view of the expressed desire of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow and all Russia, that Metropolitan Platon of Kherson and Odessa accept the administration of the North American diocese, communicated by V. Rev. T. Pashkovsky who had arrived from Moscow in the report of July 1/14, 1922, No. 1, and in view of the consent of Archbishop Alexander to the temporary transfer of the administration of the diocese to Metropolitan Platon, Metropolitan Platon is considered temporary administrator of the North American Diocese.

              along with the communication of the Y.M.C.A. representative Colton on the same.”

              “extremely odd history”? Other than the Mother Church granting autocephaly (instead of having to legitimize autocephaly already taken), not odd at all. Quite like the autocephaly of Moscow and the Church of Greece.

              “the ethnic rivalry of Carpathorussians and Great Russians. The Metropolia simply decided they no longer wanted to be part of the Church of Russia, played both ends against the middle in order to efffectuate this plan”
              Met. St. Innocent, recently elevated to the Metropolis of Moscow, himself pointed out the future of the his former vicariate reorganized as the Diocese of the Aleutians and Alaska – including the translation of the see to the lower 48 and the services into English.
              http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/08/25/st-innocents-vision/
              Unlike ROCOR, OCA continued to acknowledge the authority of Moscow – which is how it lost its Cathedral in NYC. Ironically, the same Cold War dynamics that helped ROCOR in US courts had helped OCA in retaining the Cathedral until SCOTUS pointed out that all the Orthodox autocephalous primates commemorated Patriarch Alexis of Moscow. The irony continued – Pat. Alexis I would be the one to sing the OCA Tomos of Autocephaly decades later.
              So OCA wanted to be American rather than Russian? So what? The Georgians didn’t want to be Russian, the Finns were no longer Swedes and Russians could never be. Met. Anthony didn’t want to be Ukrainian and the Ukrainians got tired of his trying to make Russians out of them, and Met. Anastasy didn’t want to be Romanian – leading to both being unable to take possession of their thrones. They didn’t want to be Greek or Serbian and simply decided they no longer wanted to be part of the Church of Russia that continued to exist in Russia, and so played both ends against the middle in order to efffectuate this plan
              OCA was at home, and not in exile nor “outside.”
              As to the Carpatho-Russians not wanting to be “Great Russians” – you seem to be confusing the OCA with A.C.R.O.D.

              “and finally bribed a completely compromised Patriarchate to grant it an autocephaly”
              LOL. Yes, always a very interesting – and Donatist – argument. I hear it often from Uniates, Phanariots, Filoretists etc. when they are de-legitimizing Moscow’s autocephaly, elevation into a patriarchate, expansion over the Metropolia of Kiev, etc.

              “recognized by no one but those churches under atheistic domination”
              ROCOR claimed

              The part of the Russian Church that finds itself abroad considers itself an inseparable, spiritually united branch of the Great Russian Church. It doesn’t separate itself from its Mother Church and doesn’t consider itself autocephalous…the Russian Orthdox Church Outside of Russia remains the free part of the Russian Church…As regards the Moscow Patriarchate and its hierarchs, then, so long as they continue in close, active and benevolent cooperation with the Soviet Government, which openly professes its complete godlessness and strives to implant atheism in the entire Russian nation, then the Church Abroad, maintaining Her purity, must not have any canonical, liturgical or even simply external communion with them whatsoever, leaving each one of them at the same time to the final judgment of the Council (Sobor) of the future free Russian Church

              but the other Orthodox Churches all maintained canonical, liturgical and communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, commemorating the Patriarch of Moscow and not the First Hierarch of ROCOR (a fact SCOTUS noted). Such Donatist reasoning failed in the Early Church, it fails now.
              The only ones dogmatically opposed to OCA autocephaly are under the domination of Omogeneia, compromised by the Phanariots’ bank roll. The same ones who, to use the words of their spokesman the Metropolitan of Bursa, condemn the Russian Church outside of Russia guilty of the heresy of ubi Russicus ibi ecclesia russicae [sic]. The only Chuches free of “atheistic domination.”
              Be careful who you pick as judges:

              In April 1924, Patriarch Gregory of Constantinople, in the heat of the struggle of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon with the Living Church, appealed to our Patriarch with the request that he “immediately depart from leading the Church,” that he dissolve the Patriarchate and hand over the fullness of Church authority to the Living Church. In July of that same year, the Metropolitan of Athens went even further, requesting that the Russian clergy in Greece recognize the “synod” of the Living Church , threatening otherwise to suspend all of them from their priestly functions.

              http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/enghistory/enhis_rocornafanail.html

              “effectively repudiated by the actions of its Mother Church (free at last) in contemporary reality.”
              I’ve noticed the popularity of this mantra as of late among those for whom the Act of Canonical Communion hasn’t sunk in. I’m not aware if they repeat it when Moscow has Abp. Justinian commemorate Metropolitan Tikhon of the OCA, or when Metropolitan Jonah was commemorated in the presence of the EP in Moscow. I know that they tell themselves that in the ACC the Patriarchate of Moscow was reconciled to ROCOR, much as the simple Faithful of Polan-Lithuania were told that the Union of Brest meant that the Pope in the Vatican had returned to Orthodoxy. Chanting mantras louder, however, doesn’t overcome cognitive dissonance.

              “Free at last” in 1991 – at the latest. That leaves 8 years now at most for a formal complaint on the Tomos of Autocephaly, before being bound to forever hold their peace. And Moscow has made no move in that direction: indeed, it has moved further in the opposite direction.

              “Now ROCOR is well aware of this history, as is Constantinople.”
              They should be. They made it up.
              Along with the revision of their own history.

              “OCA as an autocephalous American Orthodox Church is not going to work out.”
              I am convinced the autocephaly of OCA comes from divine origin, as otherwise its bishops would have long ago destroyed it utterly and it would have disappeared.

              “It is what it is.”
              That it is: and it is.

              “Most are fine Orthodox Christians though they have often been lied to by their own clergy as to the history of the OCA.”
              They have been lied to a lot, but not on their history – on that other jurisdictions have more often lied.

              “Also, I have always been amused as to the “abandoning their sees” charge. I do not hear these people accusing the Patriarchs of Antioch of abandoning their see by moving their permanent residence to Damascus.”
              Not any more than the Metropolitan of Kiev abandoning Kiev – it had ceased to exist as a city.

              “Seems like common sense given the Turk’s attitude toward Christians. ”
              Had nothing to do with the Turk – Antioch, after earthquakes, famine, plague, war and then willful destruction (to leave the Crusaders nothing to seek) and enslavement of every Christian ceased to be a city over a century before the Ottomans took Syria. The Patriarchate moved with the depopulation. It didn’t begin to revive until after three centuries of Ottoman rule, when the Egyptians set up their occupation headquarters nearby. The Patriarch erected the present Cathedral shortly thereafter, and His Beatitude does frequent it.

              “let it go as a nullity. It hasn’t even been consistently enforced in prior Orthodox history.”
              the whole discussion started “Met Platon was a member of the Council, a hierarch of ROCOR who had participated in its founding, a bishop who had abandoned his diocese of Odessa
              I’ve just been pointing out its nullity, showing its inconsistent enforcement in ROCOR history.

              • ““Free at last” in 1991 – at the latest. That leaves 8 years now at most for a formal complaint on the Tomos of Autocephaly, before being bound to forever hold their peace. And Moscow has made no move in that direction: indeed, it has moved further in the opposite direction.”

                Why should ROCOR complain or “hold its peace”? ROCOR has nothing to complain about. Its jurisdiction in North America has not been interfered with. It operates as if there were no OCA. Hold its peace about what? Does anyone deny that Metropolia hierarchs informed their faithful that they reported in matters of faith to ROCOR? That they asked permission for consecration? That they had not been in communion with the MP for decades before buying their autocephaly from the KGB, having denounced the MP as not capable of leading the Church of Russia abroad?

                It’s all public knowledge. Communing Catholics, the lies, the forgery, sitting on a synod and answering to it, then repudiating it, the revisionism of calling this “cooperation”. Worst of all were their lies in the dialogues regarding traditionalism. The OCA was beneath contempt on that subject.

                Prior to the Jonah thing, I think that this stuff might have been better off swept under the table. Now, I’m not so sure. I just don’t see why one should defend the OCA against the Phanar anymore given its history or present leadership, even setting aside the abject failure of the autocephaly project.

                • Isa Almisry says

                  ” Does anyone deny that Metropolia hierarchs informed their faithful that they reported in matters of faith to ROCOR?”
                  Every bishop answsers to both the Faithful and the rest of the Episcopate in matters of Faith. That is why we are Orthodox and not Ultramontanists.
                  As for reporting to a synod of bishops without sees, lacking a primate presiding over it, holding session outside its boundaries – such a thing is unprecedented.

                  Besides, ROCOR did not receive canonical leave from its Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority – the Ecumenical Patriarchate, who suspended it:

                  On 2 December 1920, the local ranking representative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Metropolitan Dorotheos of Prussa, informed Metropolitan Anthony of the fact that by edict of the Holy Synod (No. 9084), Russian bishops were permitted to establish a temporary church administration under the oversight of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This administration was permitted to manage and minister to Russian church communities in Orthodox countries, and to assign priests there.

                  The situation for Russian exiles in Constantinople was very tenuous and uncertain. The mass of Russian exiles and commanders and the ranks of the army were moving toward Serbia. In spring 1921, Metropolitan Anthony left Constantinople. A decision was made at a meeting of the Higher Church Administration on 21 April 1921 to move to Serbia. The next meeting was convened already in Serbia on 22 July 1921.

                  It is noteworthy that the Higher Church Administration did not find it necessary to request a blessing for the move; they simply notified the Patriarchate of Constantinople.[7] The patriarchate, however, judging by the aforementioned edict, saw the situation differently: they believed that Russian church exiles had been accepted in canonical subordination. It follows that in order to move to another Orthodox Church, the Russian exiles needed to ask for a canonical release from their new supreme authority. It is my belief that besides the political frictions noted here, these events lay the foundation for the canonical conflict between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and ROCOR. The latter believed herself in subordination to His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, and had no plans to renounce this. Despite the fact that the Higher Church Administration had moved to a site outside the bounds of the canonical territory of Patriarch Tikhon, he nonetheless blessed the activities of this administration within the bounds of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.[

                  On 30 April 1924, the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople adopted a decision: they suspended Russian Archbishops Anastasy and Alexander, who were in Constantinople[ and directed that all Russian clerics serving in Turkey were to consider themselves directly subordinate to the Patriarchate of Constantinople; and they informed the Serbian Patriarch that the Russian bishops located within Serbian canonical territory did not have the right to minister to Russian exiles

                  The Serbian Orthodox Church, however, had a different outlook on the plight of Russian bishops. In the reply from the Council of Bishops of the Serbian Church to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, dated 9 December 1924, they stated:

                  The Holy Council of Bishops, as the supreme authority of the autocephalous united Serbian Church, gave its assent to a request from His Eminence Anthony, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galich, during a council session held on 18/31 August 1921 (…), which authorized the creation of a higher church authority of [Russian] bishops to manage church affairs for the Russian colony and exiles living on the territory of our [Serbian] jurisdiction. In doing so, the Serbian Council carried out its responsibilities in a spiritual manner that leaves us satisfied that we have fulfilled our apostolic responsibilities. Thus, we have accepted the Russian exiles, who because of circumstances have ended up in our spiritual realm, under our patronage, with the permission of state authorities. We have also willed that they be ministered to by their own priests and bishops who know best their spiritual needs and blessed church traditions. Thus, on the basis of canon law, they have the right to organize an autocephalous church authority by their own free will.

                  As a result of divisions that occurred in the Russian Church, the Serbian Church did not take the direct viewpoint of ROCOR. For example, in 1934 in Belgrade, after Metropolitans Anthony and Evlogii settled their differences, zealous enforcers of ROCOR church policies refused to allow Metropolitan Evlogii, who had been defrocked by ROCOR, to serve at the Russian Trinity Church in Belgrade. As a result, Patriarch Varnava appeared at a meeting of the ROCOR council of bishops being held at the time and stated that if all suspensions imposed by ROCOR were not lifted immediately, King Alexander would not longer extend his hospitality to Russian bishops.

                  http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2006/5endokladpsarev.html

                  “that they asked permission for consecration?”
                  I know of no such request for the consecration of Theophilus as bishop of Chicago on December 3, 1922 by the direction of Pat. St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of ROCIR.

                  “the forgery”
                  You mean Ukaz 41? I’m with the Canadian court on that, seeing as the court cases I’ve seen in America made no finding (and were otherwise wildly wrong, e.g. recognizing the “Living Church.”) – can you come up with the court finding of forgery?

                  “sitting on a synod and answering to it, then repudiating it, the revisionism of calling this “cooperation”
                  you referring to ROCOR’s sojourn in the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

            • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

              Hi, Misha! You reacted quickly and rashly to my mention of the Soviet Union’s state capitalism. Calm down and consider that you may be wrong:
              Here is what you actually commented:

              “Once again you have waded in over your head. State capitalism is a situation where an authoritarian state allows private business but controls it through heavy regulation and taxes. China is a good example. They call it “Chinese communism”. In reality, it is a one party totalitarian system that is smart enough to realize that socialist economics really don’t work very well. So, they allow limited capitalism – private businesses which due to the level of control and taxation are really little engines for the state economy.”
              Misha, it’s impossible for me or anyone else to wade in over one’s head in such shallow waters!

              I’m going to print the opening lines of Wikipedia’s definition of state capitalism. (Please note, Misha, that no one in the history of the world has ever called state capitalism or any other capitalism a ‘situation’, as you have done.)

              “State capitalism is usually described as an economic system in which commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity is undertaken by the state, with management and organization of the means of production in a capitalist manner, including the system of wage labor and centralized management.[1] This designation applies to economies regardless of the political aims of the state, even if the state is nominally socialist.[2] State capitalism is characterized by the dominance of state-owned business enterprises in the economy. Examples of state capitalism include corporatized government agencies (agencies organized along corporate and business management practices) and states that own controlling shares of publicly listed corporations (acting as a shareholder).”

              That, Misha, is the state capitalism in the Soviet Union to which I referred and which even Lenin proclaimed. You may continue to be in denial about this–it’s a free country.

              China’s recent and present state capitalism, though still not a “SITUATION”, is closer to your limited understanding of what state capitalism is.
              In the U.S., the most dramatic example of state capitalism was the attempt by Republicans to change the non-profit U.S. Postal Service, into a profit-making business.

              • http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-28/the-rise-of-innovative-state-capitalism

                Read and learn, Vladyka. Title ownership is not decisive. The important thing is the degree of government control and the way in which the business functions, as a capitalistic enterprise or a government service.

                • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

                  Heh heh. “Business Week?”
                  Here, Misha, is someone in over his head;
                  “a new type of capitalism has emerged as a challenger to laissez-faire economics. Across much of the developing world, state capitalism—in which the state either owns companies or plays a major role in supporting or directing them—is replacing the free market.”

                  Misha, the author is mistaken in speaking of a new form of capitalism. He would have done better to write “a new form of state capitalism,’ since state capitalism was already proclaimed by V. Lenin, early in the last century!!!!
                  Some might consider Business Week to be more of those shallow waters.

                  Anyhow, Misha, thanks for providing SOME additional support for what I wrote, namely: “China’s recent and present state capitalism, though still not a “SITUATION”, is closer to your limited understanding of what state capitalism is.”
                  In providing that link you supported that.

                  • Heh, heh, heh . . . have it your own way, Vladyka. Thank Christ that neither you nor Isa, nor the OCA are my problem.

                    I have come to have a different view of the OCA from these little chats, from the antics of Lev Puhalo, St.Vlad’s, from your views and status as well as the Jonah debacle. There was a time when I would defend the OCA against all the long knives out there. Now I feel it is better to focus on the Church of Russia and leave the OCA to its fate, whatever it may be. The Greeks will always be around and their tune changes with their leadership. I know some pious ones, some not so pious. The Metropolia/OCA has caused more than its share of trouble during its short life and should be ignored.

            • Isa Almisry says

              ” Met. Platon (the childish, temperamental proponent of a proven forgery)”
              Btw, on that the Canadian courts didn’t think much of the American court’s finding on that:

              The plaintiffs [i.e. OCA] claim that he was elected at a Sobor held in Pittsburg early in 1922 and that in April, 1922, he was appointed temporary, and in September, 1923, permanent Administrator for North America by direct authority of the Russian Supreme Administration. In proof of this appointment they produce a document (exhibit 10) which they say is signed by Patriarch Tikhon himself. They assert, therefore, that he was entitled to rule, as he claimed to do, until his death in 1934, when he was succeeded by Archbishop Theophilus Paschkovsky.

              The defendants [i.e ROCOR] contend that exhibit 10 is a forgery, that Platon was never appointed by the Russian Supreme Administration, that the authority he was recognized as exercising came from his appointment as Archbishop of North America by a special Synod of Bishops (to be described later), and that in 1927 the same Synod dismissed him from his office and later appointed (exhibit 25) as the lawful successor to Alexander another archbishop, Apollinary, who in turn has been succeeded by Archbishop Tikhon Troitsky.

              Again, Platon claimed to be Administrator for North America by virtue not of any appointment by the Synod but of his appointment by the Russian Supreme Administration itself in April, 1922, and September, 1923. If the claim was valid, it would seem that his position, as independent of the Synod, was secure. The defendants recognize this, for to defeat the claim they declare the document produced in support of it (exhibit 10) to be a forgery. But in proof of its being a forgery they offer only the fact that Platon took some considerable time in obtaining it and the statement that it was not the sort of document that the Patriarch would sign.

              Exhibit 10 reads:

              “November 3, 1923.

              “To the Metropolitan of Kherson and Odessa, the Most Eminent Platon, who is administering temporarily the diocese in North America.

              “By the Decree of the Holy Synod, of April 14/27, 1922, Your Eminence has been appointed to temporarily administrate the diocese of North America, and the dean Theodar Pashkovsky has been appointed as the Bishop of Chicago; his promotion to the order of Bishop will take place in America.

              “To day, after having examined the situation of the Church in North America, we find it necessary, after freeing you from administrating the diocese of Kherson and Odessa, to appoint you as the administrator of the North America Church.

              “Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia.

              September 29, 1923.

              N. 41

              Moscow, The Don Monastery.”

              The defendants say that the Patriarch would have no power himself to make such an appointment; that it could be made only in conjunction with his Holy Synod; and that he would do nothing so unconstitutional as to execute a document of this sort; therefore it must be a forgery. But is this necessarily the case? By 1923 it was impossible for the Supreme Administration to function regularly; but that is not to say that it could not function at all. Might not, then, the Patriarch have acted as best he could from his prison, using such limited communications as were available? It seems not only possible but likely that he would do so. And the document fits in with the events of that time. Platon was elected as head of the Church in America by a Sobor at Pittsburg in March, 1922. The Holy Synod may well have acted upon this in April, 1922, though appointing him not Archbishop but only temporary Administrator. In that month the Supreme Administration for the Church Abroad, set up by the Karlovtzi Synod, was dissolved. Immediately afterwards the Russian Supreme Administration itself was broken up. Platon no doubt would want his appointment made permanent. May not exhibit 10 then be the proof of what he was able to obtain? At any rate no sufficient proof is given that the document is a forgery.

              This is not to say that exhibit 10, even if genuine, represents a constitutional appointment of Platon as permanent Administrator. On that point I express no opinion. How the Patriarch came to sign the document, what authority or advice he had, whether he considered that under the proper interpretation of decree 362 he was entitled to exercise the power of making an appointment, is not in evidence. But treated as genuine, the document indicates at least that in April, 1922, Platon was by the action of the Holy Synod itself duly appointed temporary Administrator. His position in North America, therefore, did not rest upon his appointment by the Karlovtzi Synod. And whether or not he was ever duly appointed permanent Administrator, he appears never to have been legally dismissed from his temporary office.

              In the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York a judgment was delivered in October, 1925, in an action brought between Platon and one John S. Kedrovsky to determine which of them was head of the Church in North America; and several of the findings of the Court are interesting. For one thing, the document that appears in the case at bar as exhibit 10 was considered. The allegation of forgery had been made, but the Court made no finding on the score. What it did find was that by September, 1923, the office of Patriarch had been abolished (a finding which all parties in the case at bar repudiate), that even if the office had continued, the Patriarch had no power to appoint an Archbishop, such power residing only in the Holy Synod of which he was president, and that in any case the document did not purport to make Platon Archbishop but only Administrator, which is a different thing. It was therefore held that Platon had not been duly appointed Archbishop. With this conclusion we may agree;but for the reasons given earlier it may nevertheless be held that he had been duly appointed temporary, if not permanent, Administrator and that he had never been removed.
              Still more interesting is the finding of the Court that Kedrovsky had been legally appointed Archbishop. The Court held that a Sobor called in Russia in 1923 had been legally convoked and that the appointments made by its Holy Synod, among which was that of Kedrovsky to be Archbishop of North America, were valid. This may be corredt, and if it is, clearly Platon was succeeded by Kedrovsky. But all parties to the present action repudiate Kedrovsky’s claim. They repudiate the Sobor of 1923 and all its works. They say that it was called by the Bolsheviks for the purpose of subverting the old Church and in its place establishing what is known as “The Living Church”, and that Kedrovsky was nothing more than an emissary of the Soviet Government. Neither Kedrovsky nor any one associated with him is a party to the present action. It proceeds on the footing that he is not concerned. The decision of the New York Court, therefore, is of little assistance.

              In the State of Connecticut in 1931 an action was tried between the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic All Saints Church and Kedrovsky et al. (1931), 156 Atl. Rep. 688. In it evidently the claims of Platon, Apollinary, and Kedrovsky to supreme authority in North America were put forward; but Kedrovsky, though he appeared, did not defend and the Court treated the matter as being really a contest between the adherents of Platon and those of Appollinary and determined the action on that footing. After observing that “both the plaintiff and defendant corporations now repudiate Kedrovsky’s pretensions”, it proceeded as though Kedrovsky were not concerned. In this respect the case was similar to the one at bar.

              As between the adherents of Platon and those of Apollinary, the Connecticut Court evidently inclined in favour of the latter. But it made no conclusive findings. In the end it based its decision simply upon the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove any higher right than the defendants. It did find that Platon’s appointment by the Karlovtzi Synod had “become ineffective by his removal from office by that body”; but the withdrawal of Platon, his right to withdraw, and the right of the Synod to remove him, appear not to have been discussed. So far as the appointment by the Patriarch is concerned, it found that the Patriarch had “no power by himself to make a personal appointment of an Archbishop”; but what action the Holy Synod may have taken and what right Platon had to continue as Administrator seems not to have been considered. Further, it frowned on Platon’s activity in connection with the new Church. On the other hand, it did not find that the Karlovtzi Synod had any particular status of legal jurisdiction. It said merely:

              “The Karlovtzi Synod is attempting to carry out as best it may, in view of the disruption of the Church, a central organization representing the traditional polity of the Church, and it is the only body which apparently is attempting to do this. Allegiance to that body by any branch of the Church goes as far toward preservation of the unity of the Church general as it is now possible to go. One can only hope and expect that the present situation of the Church marks a transitional period, out of which will ultimately emerge a settled form of organization in accordance with its traditional polity.”

              This being its view, the Court concluded that “in the meantime the plaintiff association has failed to show any higher right to represent the parish in the management and control of the church property than the defendant corporation has” and consequently the action was dismissed.

              In the case at bar the situation is quite different. The plaintiff Arseny comes, not from outside asking that someone already in possession of the diocese be ousted, but as the Bishop of Canada, duly appointed in 1926 and in practical occupation of the diocese since that time, asking that others be not allowed to usurp his position. The claims of those others are based upon the authority of the Karlovtzi Synod; and there is no proof that the Synod possesses the authority claimed for it. The plaintiff would therefore seem to have the higher right.

              In the result it must be held that the plaintiff Arseny is the lawful Bishop of Canada. The plaintiffs therefore are entitled to the declaration asked for in the pleadings and the defendants’ counterclaim must be dismissed. Costs will follow the event.

              http://www.lawofcanada.net/cases/onca/1935canlii88

              Btw, I wonder what the Patriarchal archives in Moscow say: does it have the original of Exhibit 10?

          • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

            Incidentally, Archbishop Alexander ended his days in very old age at the Russian Church in Belgium, and was known as a great patriot: he even insisted that blue, white,and red ribbons be attached to his liturgical staff so they hung down over the Sulok. Evdokim (Meshchersky), however stayed in Russia and lived out his days as an integral and enthusiastic hierarch of the Living and Renovationist movements that opposed Patriarch Tikhon. He was an early and devoted “Conciliarist”, as were and are all “Living Church” types, both here and over there. OCA histories, understandably, avoid mentioning that and mostly end with his not returning to America.

      • Michael Woerl says

        In reality, one cannot blame or judge any of these Bishops for “abandoning” their Diocese. At that time, any who stayed would have certainly been killed. Metropolitan Antony left with the White forces at one of the times the Reds were coming in; I believe the Whites forced him to leave for his own safety. Another time, when White forces returned to Kiev, Met Antony wanted to return, and was not permitted to do so. Neither do I “blame nor judge” Met Platon nor Met Evlogy (Georgievsky, +1946) for leaving, or think they “abandoned” their dioceses. I mentioned it only to illustrate the manipulation of historical fact by supposed “authorities” of the Metropolia/OCA in the “sanitized” version of the history of their jurisdiction, which became a sort of “official version,” carried on in Bp Gregory Afonsky’s “History until 1934” that appeared at the height of polemics in the 90s. This book somehow arrived at the conclusion that Patriarch Tikhon’s Ukaz #362 was justification for the existence of the Metropolia, citing its instructions to create new dioceses, diocesan authorities, etc., in the case of no viable channels of communication with the Patriarchate in Moscow. Some pages later, the book claimed Ukaz # 362 was NOT a justification for the existence of ROCOR, because “it applied only to diocesan bishops in Russia.” Amazing!

        • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

          Michael Woerl, you might have pointed out that Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) only fled from Kiev after he HADD appointed a successor Archbishop to rule the Diocese before the Reds invaded and took over the place. He left with the Whites and the Bishop he left behind got to deal with the Reds’ actions affecting the Diocese of Kiev. This is what some refer to as “abandoning a flock.’
          I feel it resembled General Douglas MacArthur abandoning the Philippines after turning them over to General Wainwright (to become a prisoner of the Japanese), and leaving while sayIng, “I shall be RI-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-GHT BACK!’

  17. Michael Woerl says

    ” … I thought that members of the Orthodox Church will never consent to sit down in church, since a church is not a theatre.” -1911
    Bishop Platon (Rozhdestvensky, later Metropolitan, +1934)

    • Michael Woerl says

      Funny! I’ve never heard anyone from the OCA quote this!

      • Isa Almisry says

        ” … I thought that members of the Orthodox Church will never consent to sit down in church, since a church is not a theatre.” -1911
        Bishop Platon (Rozhdestvensky, later Metropolitan, +1934)
        Funny! I’ve never heard anyone from the OCA quote this!”

        Did it at least have an important context?

        • . . . the context of Orthodox worship?

          • Isa Almisry says

            …was that the context?

            You do know what Kathisma/sedalia mean, no?

            • Of course, Isa. How ’bout the words translated in English as “great reverence” and “prostration”, those escape you?

              • Isa Almisry says

                “How ’bout the words translated in English as “great reverence” and “prostration”, those escape you?”
                No-was Met. Platon of blessed memory talking about them?

                Again, context?

                • “For example, here is my own case. On Christmas Eve of the New Style, I went to one of your churches in New York. I was profoundly impressed by the living, sincere and deeply religious feeling with which the Episcopal pastors and their flock prayed. I purposely did not go to the materially wealthy Grace Church, but to the church of Saint Edward which is less rich. I saw there much that captivated my soul, much that touched and stirred me. But the organ, the parishioners seated in pews during the Communion Service, and certain other peculiarities went very much against the grain with me, to say no more. And in our celebration of Divine Service, there is much by which Episcopalians must be similarly affected. But I am speaking here of myself, and must say that I found it impossible to sit down during your service, but stood all the time, attracting the attention of the Episcopal worshippers, who were seated. I do not know what they thought, especially if my unusual exterior be taken into consideration; but I thought that members of the Orthodox Church will never consent to sit down in church, since a church is not a theatre. Of course you yourselves do not regard your churches in this light, but for us, the Orthodox, it may look as if you did.”

                  Context was address at an Episcopal Church club at a Church House gathering in 1911 where he speaks of attending an Episcopal Church Christmas service and being dismayed by the difference in Western worship (pews, sitting, organ) and Orthodox worship. Of course, it’s an ecumenical free for all and an Orthodox Archbishop should not be at an Episcopal Church service in the first place . . .

                  He seems to think that these differences are not so important to preclude a Western rite that would retain pews, organs, etc.

                  No matter. Ut unum sint.

                  http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/platon_union.html

                  Pews, of course, preclude the performance of great reverences and prostrations and thus have no place in an Orthodox Church.

                  • Isa Almisry says

                    “Pews, of course, preclude the performance of great reverences and prostrations and thus have no place in an Orthodox Church.”
                    We tore ours (Antiochian) out (the building was formerly a Lutheran church). We thought of having a bonfire, but I think we ended up donating them to some conservative Evangelical group.

                    “it’s an ecumenical free for all and an Orthodox Archbishop should not be at an Episcopal Church service in the first place”
                    As we all know, Abp. St. Tikhon was.
                    And to be fair, we depended on Episcopal churches when we didn’t have a Temple available.

                    • Longue Carabine says

                      The ecclesiarch went to see for himself. This is America. Sounds like a sensible fellow to me.

            • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

              Do YOU know, Isa, to what “kathisma” and sedalion refer? There is a canon that FORBIDS reading the Holy Psalter through without interruption. It requires that the reading be interrupted periodically by a sermon or patristic reading or a sung hymn, during which the people could sit on the floor and rest up from hearing the Psalter. That is how the Psalter came to be DIVIDED into kathismata; it was divided by ‘sittings’. When a kathisma is read, one stands, and if it is followed by another such kathisma, then hearers may sit during whatever NOT-Psalm is read or sung. In the Slavonic service books, those texts used or sung between sections of the Psalter are called “sedal’ni” or “Sitting hymns.’
              Sadly, in America mainly, but not only, those with a little, little learning like to say ‘We s’posed to sit down during the reading of psalms which we know because sections of the Psalter are traditionally called “kathismata” from the Greek word for sitting.” I think that’s what Isa must have learned somewhere, right?
              On a related, but also sad, note, many are under the impression that sitting down is prescribed for the Apostolic readings, mostly, but not all, Epistles. That’s also a misunderstanding. The sitting during those readings is prescribed ONLY for the Priest oR Bishop. In Christ’s homeland, the East, or as we might also say, West Asia, teachers traditionally SIT DOWN while they teach, and their students stand round about them to listen. I believe this may still be observed in other parts of Asia today. The Priest or Bishop, sits as the Teacher while the people are being taught the Apostolic “Lessons.’ This is just the opposite of European practice and that of the mainly Protestant Churches. In the West, the teacher stands while the students sit. The Protestant Churches are mainly western classrooms and the minister stands up front teaching the people who are his pupils, who sit.
              Metropolitan Platon was “right on” with his sarcastic remark.
              Metropolitan Benjamin (Fedchenko), once the ruling hierarch of the MPs American parishes, wrote his reminiscences of the classically humble Archbishop Innocent (Solotchin), who retired to a monastery. Innocent upset the monks of the monastery by never sitting, especially during Matins. One day a monk gathered up his courage during the reading of the ‘kathismata” at Matins and said, ‘Vladyko, please, you can sit down now. Look, over there, those monks are all sitting, and you can sit down too. please, sit down, since you are making us uncomfortable.’ ARchbishop Innocent replied, “Yes, I DO see those Orthodox monks over there sitting down while I, and Orthodox hierarch am standing! I’m afraid that if I should sit down, they’ll all LiE DOWN!”

              • My God!!! Hell hath frozen over!!!! I actually agree wholeheartedly with something Vladyka Tikhon wrote. Two thumbs up!!!

              • Isa Almisry says

                “I think that’s what Isa must have learned somewhere, right?”
                Wrong yet again.
                Isa knows Greek/Slavonic (and it doesn’t hurt that “Akathist” is translated into Arabic literally “no sitting in it”), has been East/West Asia, teaches standing (and walking) three hours straight, etc.

                But this is actually what I was thinking of:
                http://pemptousia.com/files/2014/03/minim.jpg

        • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

          I believe that the remarks of Metropolitan Platon of Blessed Memory should be an important enough context for anyone.
          One might note at some point that Metropolitan Platon and Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky” were never ever members of a mutual admiration society. The latter complained often and vociferously of the former’s having been appointed to be the Rector of the Kiev Theological Academy because he thought the former was a horrible and dangerous liberal. That was in Imperial Russia.

          • Met. Antony was sent by the Church to report on the status of the Kiev seminary. The report apparently was not to Platon’s liking:

            “On April 22, 1902, Bishop Anthony was appointed to the Volyn and Zhytomyr cathedra, the largest diocese of the Russian Church at that time. The new energetic bishop worked to restore canonical order in the diocese, ending simony and bribery, promoting liturgical order and love toward the flock.

            In 1907, Bishop Anthony headed a committee examining the Kiev Theological Academy. The committee’s findings were unpopular with academy staff, leading to Bishop Anthony’s publication of “The Truth about the Kiev Theological Academy” and the resignation of its rector, Bishop Platon (Rozhdestvesky), the future head of the American Metropolia. Many believe that this incident led to the subsequent antagonism among the emigré bishops, which resulted in the split between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) and the Orthodox Church in America (OCA).” – Orthodoxwiki – Met. Anthony (Khrapovitsky)

            • And on Met. Platon:

              In 1927, Platon, free of the strictures of both the Moscow Patriarchate and the ROCOR synod, attempted to form an autocephalous Orthodox Church in North America by blessing the creation of the American Orthodox Catholic Church, whose constitution gave it authority over all Orthodox Christians living on the continent and was led by Aftimios Ofiesh, Archbishop of Brooklyn. The new jurisdiction collapsed on itself in a matter of six or seven years, however, as Platon soon withdrew his support in the wake of internal pressures and conflicts as well as external pressures from the Episcopal Church U.S.A., which felt that the new church constituted competition with it (the Episcopalians regarded themselves as the “senior Orthodox church” in the US). Additionally, when Aftimios chose to contract a civil marriage, all legitimacy which the new jurisdiction retained was erased in the eyes of mainstream Orthodoxy.

              Platon announced in 1929 that he would be willing to accept ROCOR authority again if the synod would in return recognize him as Metropolia primate instead of Apollinary. When the synod denied his terms, Platon went on a legal campaign to seize parishes and properties throughout North America from Apollinary’s authority. Most of the court cases he brought forward failed.

              In 1933, Platon rejected the request by Metr. Sergius (Stragorodsky) (locum tenens of the Moscow Patriarchate) to pledge “loyalty” to the Soviet regime (though that “loyalty” was mainly described by MP representatives in terms of not engaging in anti-Soviet political activism). In response, Moscow declared Platon to be in schism, deposing him before an ecclesiastical court and forming the Russian Exarchate of North America, whose bishop was regarded by Russia at that time as being the rightful canonical successor of Russian jurisdiction in America.

              After his death in 1934, he was buried at the cemetery at St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Monastery (South Canaan, Pennsylvania), and the ROCOR lifted its ban against the Metropolia as a goodwill gesture, leading to renewal of relations in 1935 with Platon’s successor, Metr. Theophilus (Pashkovsky). – Orthodoxwiki – Met. Platon (Rozhdestvensky)

              Again, “corrections” should be addressed to the editors of Orthodoxwiki.

            • Isa Almisry says

              “Met. Antony was sent by the Church to report on the status of the Kiev seminary. The report apparently was not to Platon’s liking…In 1907, Bishop Anthony headed a committee examining the Kiev Theological Academy. The committee’s findings were unpopular with academy staff, leading to Bishop Anthony’s publication of “The Truth about the Kiev Theological Academy” and the resignation of its rector, Bishop Platon (Rozhdestvesky), the future head of the American Metropolia. Many believe that this incident led to the subsequent antagonism among the emigré bishops, which resulted in the split between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) and the Orthodox Church in America (OCA).” – Orthodoxwiki – Met. Anthony (Khrapovitsky)”

              “1907” you say?

              “Ukase Of His Imperial Majesty The Autocrat Of All Russia By The Holy Governing Synod
              ” To The North American Ecclesiastical Body:
              “Upon a ukase of His Imperial Majesty, the Holy Governing- Synod considered; a report of the Holy Synod approved by His Majesty on June 8, 1907, that Rector of Kiev Ecclesiastical Academy, Most Reverend Platon, Bishop of Tchigirin, First Vicar of Kiev Diocese should be appointed the Aleutian and North American Archbishop;
              Ordered: that the above mentioned report of the Holy Synod approved by His Majesty be announced by a ukase to the North American Ecclesiastical Board and the Board be directed to order that the name of the Most Reverend Platon be proclaimed in the churches of the Aleutian Diocese at the divine services, in accordance with the regulations.
              “June 22,1907 No. 7368
              “Oversecretary (Signature)
              ” Secretary (Signature)”

              http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA245&lpg=PA245&dq=Platon+rector+Kiev+Academy+Aleutians+North+America&sig=1fTsBfwXeAos-gT6ct6ndtKWgAM&ei=pDg8U-GTE6io2wXIw4DgCQ&id=C6ZgmR7sBb0C&ots=ue9IMjGVkg#v=onepage&q=Platon%20rector%20Kiev%20Academy%20Aleutians%20North%20America&f=false

              ” Most of the court cases he brought forward failed.”
              IOW, not all. I posted already the Canadian court rejecting ROCOR’s jurisdiciton over Canada (recognized for OCA since the days of Abp. St. Tikhon in 1903), and upholding Met. Platon’s.

              • Of course. He resigned after a bad report and was transferred abroad. What’s not to love?

              • Isa,

                I’m going to try to cease and desist from sifting through the record of the tortured relationship between ROCOR and the OCA in which we have been engaging. I replied to your comment immediately above earlier today but am not sure if it will post as it is not coming up on my computer now.

                In any case, I perused through my old posts and found that we got into this little discussion as a result of my comment on the following post:

                “’why make a point of stating that ROCOR bishops were ‘monarchists?’ Perhaps you can tell me’”
                “Sure can: unlike the All Russian Sobor of Pat. St. Tikhon, the ROCOR synod at Karlovsky decided to take what was God’s and render it to the cause of Caesar, i.e. the ‘Tsar from the House of Romanov.’”

                While I did intend to defend ROCOR in that regard, I had expressed many times previously that hissies regarding this 20th feud are best avoided. It is like two fleas on the back of a dog arguing about which way they wish the tail to wag. I look to the statements of hierarchs at the time as decisive. What did they think the food chain looked like. You look to canon law as you see it.

                For me, what it boils down to is that I agree with you much of the time and respect your intellect even if on occasion we do disagree. I cannot see any further good coming from my continuing on in this venue with an argument which I’m sure will be waged by others in both jurisdictions until everyone involved gets tired of it.

      • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

        Michael Woerl, are you a member of the OCA? The reason I ask is that you wrote this, “I’ve never heard anyone from the OCA quote this!”

  18. Michael Woerl says

    Alexander Nemolovsky, 1876-1960, reposed as the MP’s Metropolitan of Brussels and Belgium. After leaving North America, he eventually found his way to Athos, and joined the Ecumenical Patriarchate. He was confirmed by the EP as Archbishop of Brussels in 1936, under Met. Evlogy’s “Russian Exarchate” of the EP. He joined the MP in 1945, and was elevated to Metropolitan in 1959. Abp. Alexander’s sojourn in Germany after the German invasion of Belgium leads to yet another series of polemical untruths concerning ROCOR, primarily expounded by Abp. John (Shakhovskoy). As Misha noted-the untruths are an institutional hallmark … And, yes, Isa, Met. Leonty (Turkevich), as he was consecrated to the episcopate in 1933, during the time the Metropolia was in schism from ROCOR, was not one of the Bishops of the Metropolia who was consecrated with the permission of the ROCOR Synod. Until 1926, from 1935 to 1946 … Got it?

    • Isa Almisry says

      “And, yes, Isa, Met. Leonty (Turkevich), as he was consecrated to the episcopate in 1933, during the time the Metropolia was in schism from ROCOR, was not one of the Bishops of the Metropolia who was consecrated with the permission of the ROCOR Synod.”
      The OCA was in pseudo-schism from Moscow (pseudo, because, like ROCOR, it had valid reasons resisting its authority at the time). ROCOR was in schism from Constantinople (as was the OCA, but the OCA, unlike ROCOR, had never been in the Phanar’s jurisdiction), Moscow and OCA: Met. (then Fr.) Leonty – Pat. (then Abp.) St. Tikhon’s chosen chair for the First All American Sobor and OCA delegate to the All Russian Sobor – had secured the autonomy at the Fourth All American Sobor for Met. (suggested by Pat. St. Tikhon, nominated by the primate, Abp. Alexander, ratified by the All American Sobor and confirmed by Pat. St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of ROCIR) Platon in April 1924, i.e. before 1926.
      It had already asserted an independence at the First All American Sobor (the first Sobor anywhere in the Russian Church outside of St. Petersburg’s Department of the Orthodox Confession since the reign of the Emperor Peter I) under Abp./Pat. St. Tikhon in 1907, and exercised autonomy at the Second and Third All American Sobors of 1918/9 and 1922.
      How the Synod of Bishops without sees in the jurisdiction of another Local Church saw that autonomy determined the relationship of the OCA with that body. Not with anyone else.

      “Got it?”
      I’ve got the facts, and the evidence to back it up.

      That the chain of primates forged by Abp./Pat. St. Tikhon for North America just got stronger creates problems for the narrative of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia versus the Orthodox Church In America – both Met. Theophilus and Met. Leonty being recruited and mentored for North America by Pat. St. Tikhon during his golden age tenure in North America.

      Btw, on your latter dates: it is odd that the OCA by the hands of Abp. Adam of Philadelphia and the Carpatho-Russians, Bp. Areseny of Winnipeg and All Canada, and Bp. Leonty of Chicago consecrated Samuel as the heir of the “Rusi” factions of the Antiochians – i.e. the heirs of Bp. St. Raphael – on the same day that ROCOR’s agent Abp. Vitaly and Antioch’s agent Met. Theodosius of Tyre and Sidon consecrated Anthony Bashir as the leader of the “Antaki” faction – i.e. the heirs of the renegade Met. Germanos Shehadi. On that day – April 19, 1936 – according to your story, no difference should have stood between the OCA and ROCOR.

      • Longue Carabine says

        We observers desperately need a chart and timeline!

        • ROCOR and OCA Timeline

          1917 Bolshevik Revolution breaks out in Russia.

          1919 Southern Church Council meets in Stavropol at which Higher Church Administration was formed in Southern Russia.

          1920 St. Tikhon of Moscow issues Ukaz No. 362; first session of the Higher Church Administration outside borders of Russia.

          1921 34 ROCOR bishops meet in synod in Karlovtsy, Serbia, including Metr. Platon and Abp. Alexander, hierarchs of the Metropolia.

          1924 4th All-American Sobor of the Metropolia votes to establish “temporary self-government,” breaking administrative ties with Moscow.

          1926 Metr. Platon of the Metropolia breaks ties with the ROCOR synod.

          1927 ROCOR synod sends epistle to American parishes suspending Platon and his clergy.

          1933 Metr. Platon refuses to pledge loyalty to Moscow, which declares the Metropolia to be in schism and establishes an exarchate on American soil.

          1934 Death of Metr. Platon; ROCOR lifts ban against Metropolia.

          1935 “Temporary Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad” signed by Karlovtsy Synod, including Theophilus of the Metropolia, thus renewing relations.

          1937 6th All-American Sobor of the Metropolia declares itself to report to ROCOR in matters of faith.

          1946 7th All-American Sobor of the Metropolia breaks all ties with the ROCOR, splitting American Russian Orthodoxy in two.

          1970 Metropolia reconciles with and receives autocephaly from Moscow, returning Japanese possessions to its control and becoming known as the OCA.

          1971 ROCOR denounces Moscow’s grant of autocephaly; OCA receives rebel ROCOR parish in Australia.

          1976 Bulgarian Diocese in Exile breaks with ROCOR and joins OCA.

          1982 Calendar schism in OCA diocese of E. Pennsylvania; ROCOR receives multiple parishes in the area.

          2001 Election of Metr. Laurus as First Hierarch of ROCOR.

          2007 Restoration of communion between ROCOR and Moscow.

          2011 The primates and hierarchs of the OCA and ROCOR concelebrated the Divine Liturgy for the first time in nearly 70 years. (Synodal Cathedral of the Sign, New York, NY)

          Source – Orthodoxwiki, Rocor and OCA – http://orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR_and_OCA

          Attempts at revisionist history should be sent to the nice people at Orthodoxwiki. I’m sure they realize they’re not infallible. Most of the time they use OCA texts on their explanation of feasts and hymns.

          • Isa Almisry says

            Since the OCA predates the Bolshevik Revolution, the timeline written from the perspective of ROCOR is missing some items, which, however, can mostly be supplied from the same fallible source:
            http://orthodoxwiki.org/Timeline_of_Orthodoxy_in_America
            http://orthodoxwiki.org/Alexander_(Nemolovsky)_of_the_Aleutians

            1898 Tikhon (Belavin) becomes Bishop of the Aleutians and Alaska; American annexation of Hawaii.

            1900 Name of Russian mission diocese changed from the Aleutian Islands and Alaska to the Aleutian Islands and North America, claiming an expansion of its territorial boundaries.

            1902 Building of St. Nicholas Cathedral in New York.

            1904 Innocent (Pustynsky) consecrated as Bishop of Alaska; Raphael (Hawaweeny) consecrated as Bishop of Brooklyn, becoming the first Orthodox bishop to be consecrated in America.

            1905 St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Monastery (South Canaan, Pennsylvania) founded; Bp. Tikhon (Belavin) raised to rank of archbishop; seminary opened in Minneapolis; Russian see transferred to New York; Fr. Sebastian Dabovich elevated to archimandrite and given charge over Serbian parishes by Tikhon; Episcopal priest of nearly 30 years Dr. Ingram Irvine converted to Orthodoxy, assigned to “English work.”

            1906 Holy Synod of Russia confirms practice of commemorating the American president by name, and not the Russian Tsar, during divine services; blessing of St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Monastery by hierarchs Tikhon, Raphael and Innocent; translation of Service Book by Isabel Hapgood.

            1907 1st All-American Sobor held in Mayfield, PA, at which name of the Russian mission was declared to be The Russian Orthodox Greek-Catholic Church in North America under the Hierarchy of the Russian Church; Abp. Tikhon (Belavin) returns to Russia and is succeeded by Platon (Rozhdestvensky); first Sunday of Orthodoxy service in New York [where Abp./Pat. Tikhon gives his farewell sermon to North America: http://www.monachos.net/library/patristics/patristictexts/473 ]

            1909 Bp. Innocent (Pustynsky) transferred to Russia, succeeded by Alexander (Nemolovsky) as Bishop of Alaska; death of Fr. Alexis Toth.

            1911 Minneapolis seminary transferred to Tenafly, New Jersey.

            1914 Abp. Platon (Rozhdestvensky) recalled to Russia and made bishop of Kishinev, after having received 72 communities (mainly ex-Uniate Carpatho-Russians) into Orthodoxy during his rule.

            1915 Death of Raphael of Brooklyn; Abp. Evdokim (Meschersky) succeeds Platon; first monastery for women in Springfield, Vermont.

            1916 Consecration of Philip (Stavitsky) of Alaska; Alexander (Nemolovsky) appointed Bishop of Canada with his see in Winnipeg.

            1917 Ex-Uniate priest Alexander Dzubay consecrated with the name Stephen as Bishop of Pittsburgh; Archim. Aftimios (Ofiesh) consecrated as Bishop of Brooklyn; Abp. Tikhon (Belavin) elected Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia at the All Russian Sobor of 1917-1918.

            1917 Bolshevik Revolution breaks out in Russia.

            [February 12 to February 15] 2nd All-American Sobor meets in Cleveland, electing Alexander (Nemolovsky) as its new diocesan bishop, and also electing bishops for the Albanian and Serbian communities, pending approval from Moscow (which never comes).

            [May 18 to May 24] Southern Church Council meets in Stavropol at which Higher Church Administration was formed in Southern Russia

            1920 When it was announced that Archbishop Evdokim was not returning to the United States, the Second All-American Sobor of 1919 in Cleveland, Ohio elected Alexander as the ruling bishop which was belatedly confirmed by Patriarch Tikhon and the Holy Synod of the Church of Russia on August 27, 1920. This made him the first primate to be chosen locally in North America;

            St. Tikhon of Moscow issues Ukaz No. 362; first session of the Higher Church Administration outside borders of Russia.

            1921 34 ROCOR bishops meet in synod in Karlovtsy, Serbia, including Metr. Platon (Rozhdestvensky), [future] primate of the Russian Metropolia [and Abp. Alexander, the primate of North America and the Aleutians]; death of Fr. Ingram Nathaniel Irvine; in New York City

            I got to get back to work, but this is a convenient cut off point, as the bare facts of the above are AFAIK never disputed by anyone.

            • Except that there was no OCA before 1970. What you are referring to was simply that part of the Russian Orthodox Church in North America, at least before 1924-26. Anyway, cheers.

        • Isa Almisry says

          “We observers desperately need a chart and timeline!”

          I remember when a convert asked me, overhearing a conversation at coffee hour, “Do I need to know all this to join?” “No,” I replied, “and it’s better if you didn’t. But unfortunately you probably will pick it up.” He did convert, OCA but ended up in an Elder Efraim monastery.

      • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

        I’m too busy today and generally too old to take time to go over all Isa Almisry’s idiogsyncratic ideas, such as those relative to schisms (he doesn’t under stand schism or what it means to be IN schism, and seems to be unable to distinguish between the pseudo and the quasi), but I DO have time for one short lesson:. Isa wrote “Met. (then Fr.) Leonty”! He did not know that Metropolitan Leonty’s non-monastic name, when he was a married priest, had been Leonid, not Leonty.
        An entity can only be “in” schism with a Local Church of which that entity was once a member.
        .

  19. What might be interesting is to do a little thought experiment. Would the OCA leadership be fine and dandy with the Greeks and Antiochians joining the OCA if all positions therein, immediately, were reassigned on the basis of seniority?

    I think not. The reason is that being an American Orthodox Church for the OCA is not about being an American Orthodox Church. The title is merely a title. It has its big fish in a little pond just like the other jurisdictions do. It just escapes a certain amount of criticism on this point because of its “American” designation. Now, it is true that it is predominantly convert at this time in history. I’m not quite sure about the ruling clique, however.

    Historically, after the influx of the Uniates led in by Fr. Alexis Toth, the Metropolia had a strong Ukrainian influence. In fact, later on when another group of Ukrainians decided to join the Orthodox Church, they did so under Constantinople (now ACROD), being worried about attempts at “russification” given the experience of the Toth group. They found a better way of “doing their own thing”.

    My point being that if one is to answer the question of “what is the OCA?” if not an autocephalous “American Orthodox Church” (since that effort seems to have been rejected either de facto or de jure by world Orthodoxy), then it might most easily be characterized as a Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church in America. This makes more sense than most any other designation given its practices, hymnography and history. Of course, whatever it is, it would not want to submit its identity to the influx of superior numbers of non-OCA any more than any other jurisdiction would.

    PS: Just for kicks after I initially posted this, I perused through what biographical information I could find on Kishkovsky and the present and former leadership of the OCA. Galicia, Ukraine, Poland and, generally, ancestry from parts of “Little Russia” kept turning up. Not to say that there were not a number of converts and those of Albanian or Romanian background. There were. But the CarpathoRus foundation is solidly there. You might consider that and the historical, ethnic composition of the OCA/Metropolia if you are curious as to why things transpired as they did (and transpire as they do today).

    • Isa Almisry says

      Ukrainophobia aside, as I posted before, the Ukrainians dominated the whole Russian Church after 1686.

      Being Ukrainian is neither illegal, nor uncanoical, nor immoral. Met. Anthony’s “ideas” aside.

      • . . . and I never suggested in any way or for a second it was, strawmen aside. My point is that Ukrainians had and have a tendency to resist Great Russian domination and that goes some way to explaining the associational acrobatics of the Metropolia. But, of course, you knew that.