It says in the Bible that “unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it” (Psalm 127:1-2). We may be at this point of vain labor regarding the Chambessy protocols that were established to rectify the numerous canonical irregularities that beset the Orthodox Church in North America.
Metropolitan Joseph, the Primate of the Antiochian Archdiocese recently released a letter regarding the Episcopal Assembly of the United States and its deficiencies (reprinted below). Even when read in the most charitable light, it is clear that His Eminence is pouring buckets of ice water on the Assembly and its work (such as it is).
The question before us is why? Why did Metropolitan Joseph choose this day, right after the close of the sixth session of the Episcopal Assembly (an Assembly which he chose not to attend) to issue this missive?
There are many reasons no doubt but the most compelling is that he wants to make it absolutely clear that Antioch is rejecting Constantinople’s unsubtle hegemonic claims.
Intimations of displeasure with the Phanar have been boiling under the surface for several years. Two years ago that the bishops of ROCOR decided to declare their non-subservience to the Episcopal Assembly process. They were in it but not of it, if you catch my drift. Shortly thereafter Damascus ordered all of the Antiochian Archdioceses throughout the world to pull out of their respective Episcopal Assemblies. Unlike ROCOR, they did so without any qualifications.
To be sure, these same Antiochian Archdioceses returned within fairly short order but it was clear that the bloom was off the EA rose. Since then, the Bulgarian Archdiocese in North America balked at the proposed restructuring plans and segments of the Romanian Episcopate of the OCA their longing for Bucharest known.
The strengthening of ties with the various Mother Countries are understandable given the influx of immigrants and refugees from the Old World. The Episcopal Assembly in this country shows no more special concern for ministering to these recent immigrants than it does for the American-born. Not all non-Greek resistance can be ascribed to the typical ham-fisted tactics of the Phanar or its operatives in the GOA. That being said, one cannot discount the maladroit ways in which the Phanar continues to press its claims over the “barbarian lands.”
Speaking as one who longs for unity in these United States, I cannot fault Metropolitan Joseph for his similar desire to strengthen Syro-Lebanese ties to Damascus. Notwithstanding the valid concerns of the refugee crisis (not to mention the possible extinction of the indigenous Christian population of the Middle East), His Eminence’s loyalty to Damascus is meritorious in this respect as well: The See of Antioch has no papalist hegemonic claims over other lands. This is crucial.
The same cannot be said of Constantinople which has seen fit to dust off canons from late Antiquity which purportedly show universal jurisdiction. This has been their modus operandi ever since the unfortunate modernist impulses of Patriarch Meletius IV Metaxakis took hold and has only accelerated over the years. As anybody who studies history knows, these spurious canons from the fourth Ecumenical Council were quickly invalidated by the Pope within weeks of their publication and never referenced again. That is not until the present day.
Metropolitan Joseph raises significant issues regarding the makeup of the Assembly, the primary one being that the Primate of each of the American jurisdictions is equal in rank to every other Primate (including the Primate of the OCA –although here the matter can be complicated should the OCA press its claims). According to Orthodox proper ecclesiology all Primates should be seated together whenever they meet in the order prescribed by the Diptychs.
Joseph emphasizes this point and so fires a shot across the GOA bow.
More troubling is the canonical situation is thrown into even more chaos thanks to the fairly recent elevation of all GOA bishop to metropolitan status. Under the present Phanariote scheme, every bishop is a metropolitan subject to Bartholomew. Under such a scenario there can be no Primate for the GOA. Archbishop Demetrius may be the public face of the GOA but he has no authority over the Metropolitans since they report directly to Bartholomew. They are –in fact and function–archbishops. As such, the primatial principle by which Demetrius is considered the “Exarch of the Ecumenical Throne” is in fact null and void. It lacks all substance.
This bears a little more attention and shows us why Joseph’s challenge to the the GOA (and by extension the Phanar) is bold –and important: if all the Primates of America were represented at the Presidium (as they should be), not only would Archbishop Demetrius appear thereon, but all GOA metropolitans would be seated alongside him as well. This clearly is unworkable but it is exactly what the canons require given the makeup of the GOA. After all, the only “real” Primate for the GOA is Patriarch Bartholomew. (Maybe this was the intention all along and, if so, Joseph derailed a subtle bureaucratic maneuver intended for a later date.)
Maybe we should be grateful. The truth is however, that the real problem with the Phanariote plan is not the specious readings of canons or even hasty organization schemes. It’s with the men. Most every one knows this. No present bishop not affiliated with the GOA desires to serve under the lead-footed domination of the current crop of GOA metropolitans. That goes double for the vast majority of non-GOA priests. To buy their acquiescence, the Archons would have to step up to the plate and demand the harmonization of priestly salaries across the board. As for the laity, the perceptions of traditionalists towards the GOA are not glowing.
Anyway, we should not be alarmed because of Metropolitan Joseph’s pouring of the ice water. It may be the best thing to happen to Orthodox unity in America in a long time because it raises the awareness of what is at stake. As for the GOA, it shows that Antioch cannot be bought off as easily as previously thought.
And we should always keep in mind one thing: no unity is better than a bad unity.
Statement of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America to the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops
Source: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Statement of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America to the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the United States Regarding the Draft Proposal of the Committee on Canonical Regional Planning
Presented at the Meeting of the Assembly of Bishops Convened in Chicago, IL
September 15-17, 2015
The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America has always prayed for and been committed to unity and cooperation of all of the Orthodox Christians in North America. The unity that we seek is true Orthodox unity based on mutual respect, love and cooperation with all of the Orthodox in America without subjugation or domination of any. Unity must allow for the continued work and support of each of the jurisdictions for their people and continued unity with the respective mother churches.
There is no doubt that the Christian Fellowship and work of the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops in America as well as that of the Assembly of Bishops has been very valuable. We have come to know each other and have discovered how we can even better cooperate and support each other. We can enhance the ministries of each other as well as promulgate corporate ministries. Our relationships provide even more effective ministries. We are grateful for the candid and honest exchanges of the bishops at the meetings. We are committed to continuing this process of building up our relationships and working together in every area possible.
The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America continues to be committed to the unity of the Antiochian Archdiocese and the Antiochian Patriarchate. The Church of Antioch, even while under persecution, stands firm as a witness to the incarnation of Christ and the history of the Savior in this world. By maintaining our unity with Antioch we provide a subtle witness to the world that Jesus Christ is the incarnate God who lived in the Holy Lands among us and is one with us.
Each of our bishops at our first confession of faith committed “myself to the preservation of the peace of the Church and …(to) obey and follow the directives of His Beatitude, the Patriarch of Antioch and all the East; and (to) uphold and protect the honor of the Patriarch of Antioch all the days of my life.” The Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Antioch and her Patriarch JOHN X remains committed to the unity of the Patriarchate with all of Antiochian faithful wherever they are. The Antiochian Metropolitan and bishops of North America remain committed to our consecration pledge.
We suggest that the Assembly of Bishops in the United States work as a voluntary Assembly of all the Canonical Bishops in the United States to accomplish the mission of the Assembly as articulated in the founding documents: “The mission of the Bishops’ Assemblies is the proclamation and promotion of the unity of the Orthodox Church, the common pastoral ministry of the Orthodox faithful of the region, as well as their common witness to the world.” We also agree that decisions should be made on the basis of the principle of unanimity of the Orthodox which are represented therein by bishops. In order to show filial love and respect, we would like all of the officers to be elected by the local assembly and to sit by order of the diptychs. We encourage the bishops in each geographical area to meet regularly and cooperate in ministry. We also support the continued work with inter-jurisdictional agencies and Orthodox theological groups. In this day of easy travel and communication, bishops can effectively serve their parishes in America without restructuring present geographical boundaries. Our churches are not yet homogeneous and there are jurisdictional needs within our parishes.
It was never going to happen in the first place.
All of the various Bishops coming under GOA
rule? Not gonna happen, ever!
I think knowing the agenda of the Pan Orthodox Synod of 2016 might assist this discussion:
Agenda
I am curious as to why topics which have already been settled (calander, fasting, marriage) by previous councils are being re-examined. Is there a commitment by various parties to “throw out the baby with the bath water” ?
Paul,
I believe you are on the right track, but missing a few things.
The agenda is being reported on the USCCB website. What would the Catholic Church be interested in “Our” Council? The issues that you raised are issues that may lead to “synchronicity” with the RCC, and/or may provide theological “Justification” for a married Episcopate in the RCC that was always a disciplinary rule NOT a Dogmatic or Theological necessity. But again, why are the Catholics so interested?
It would seem that the ugly head of “Synchronicity” may be rising in the council, and that should make every Orthodox Christian very, very nervous if not down-right scared. To have the RCC so interested in our upcoming council raises many red flags for me.
May it not be true.
Peter
I really haven’t paid any attention to this Synod — I am of the opinion that given the current state of international Orthodox ecclesiastical politics (analogous to the travesty of “rotten boroughs” in English electoral history), very little good can come of such a meeting, and much bad can come of it. Recall that at the big meeting early in the 20th century, the only thing they managed to change was the calendar — in the process doing a smashing good job of creating divisions within Orthodoxy and within local churches that last to this day, and with nothing positive that remotely compensates for those divisions.
It makes sense to address variations in practice (such as marriage and divorce guidelines), but mainly within a region or within a local national church. A pan-Orthodox council is unnecessary for such things. The American bishops will have their hands full just trying to get some uniformity here on this continent.
I don’t know whether it is my willful ignorance about this Synod/Council, but I think it is interesting that this statement by the Catholics is the first summary and discussion of the agenda that I have seen. The few things I have read about it seem to focus exclusively on the question of the “diaspora” and who gets to be in charge. There is some serious stuff on this agenda, with serious potential for major disruptions and divisions within Orthodoxy, and it is curious that those things seem to be flying under the radar.
But maybe my cynicism is showing — maybe Constantinople et al will come to their senses and decide that it is more important to worship in unity with other Orthodox Christians than with the heterodox, and maybe they will go back onto the Old Calendar.
It is important that all Orthodox worship together, but it’s also important that we keep accurate time. All Orthodox should be on the Gregorian calendar (the Revised Julian is not a solution), Latins notwithstanding.
Or do we think it’s a valuable part of our witness that Pascha will someday be in the summertime, just because we refuse to acknowledge that the Julian scheme of leap years was a bit off?
I’m as traditionalist as they come, but the Julian calendar is not of divine origin.
While it is true that the Julian calendar is not of divine origin, it is the only calendar to have been mandated by a Great and Holy Synod, whereas the Gregorian calendar was condemned as heretical by a local synod of the Church.
Thus either some new Ecumenical Council would need to change the calendar (and this upcoming meeting will definitely not be an EC, the number of bishops for each jurisdiction will be limited and thus the synod will not reflect the catholicity of the Church), or the New Calendarists need to abandon their uncanonical departure from the Church (Julian) calendar.
* * *
“One claim often made in favor of ‘calendar reform’ is that it would be more convenient to have the festivals, such as Christmas, at the same time as they are celebrated by everyone else. But where was the Gregorian Adjustment first introduced into the Orthodox Church? Not in the diaspora, but in places like Constantinople, Greece and Romania, where almost all the Christians are Orthodox. When Pope Gregory XIII introduced his adjustment, he tried to pressure the Orthodox Church into doing the same, but a synod which met in 1583 gave him a very firm reply. Carrying the signatures of Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople, Patriarch Sylvester of Alexandria and Patriarch Sophronios of Jerusalem, the document states: ‘Whosoever does not follow the customs of the Church which the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils have decreed, and the Holy Pascha and calendar which they enacted well for us to follow, but wants to follow the newly invented Paschalion [method of fixing the date of Easter] and the new calendar of the atheist astronomers of the Pope; and, opposing the Councils, wishes to overthrow and destroy the doctrines and customs of the Church, which we have inherited from our Fathers, let any such have the anathema and let him be outside the Church and the Assembly of the Faithful.'” – http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/calendar_bond.aspx
“While it is true that the Julian calendar is not of divine origin, it is the only calendar to have been mandated by a Great and Holy Synod…”
Which Synod do you have in mind? Surely you do not mean an Ecumenical Council.
Actually, neither thing “needs” to be done, and neither, I expect, will be.
Actually, Tim, I agree with you.
I should have posited a third option, the most likely one – status quo. As it stands, the calendar question stands as a proxy by which it can be determined, more or less accurately, whether an Orthodox parish/church is traditional or modernist/ecumenist. That’s probably a good thing.
Time of year means less than nothing with respect to the Church calendar. It will take many, many centuries for the calendar to drift to the point that Pascha is in the summertime. God willing, the Lord will not tarry that long. The “accuracy” and “seasonal” arguments are red herrings which have no firm basis in anything. The only question is what calendar has been established and used by the Church and why was another calendar substituted by some. It is crystal clear that adoption of the New Julian calendar was in emulation of the heterodox – ecumenism that animated the decision. It is also clear that it sometimes shortens or eliminates one of the fasts, the Apostles’ fast, from time to time. There are also other problems with it which we could go into but it’s not really worth the effort.
The thing that should be apparent to all is that we are arguing about this like Protestants when the Church already spoke long ago, and reaffirmed itself, on this question. The “New Calendarists” want their opinion to prevail – apparently for different and conflicting reasons – so badly that they are willing to disregard church order. That should tell you something about the spirit of the age that is manifest in their souls.
There is no theological reason that time should be measured one way and not another, so I fail to see how a calendar can be heretical. Obviously the Vatican was at war with the Christian East at this time, and that is the reason for this declaration. I don’t care a whit about celebrating Pascha on the same day as the West, my point is that it is inaccurate on its own terms.
I suspect that Jeremias et al. would say it is more heretical to celebrate Pascha in the wintertime, if they had understood the implications of their decree. But that’s exactly what will happen if the Lord tarries and the Julian paschalion continues. I pity the poor liturgists who have to figure out how to celebrate the Nativity and Holy Friday on the same day.
I do agree that things need to be fixed in the proper way, but people need to start caring about such things too. It’s a needless complication.
Ages (September 23, 2015 at 5:21 pm) says:
SNIP
I suspect that Jeremias et al. would say it is more heretical to celebrate Pascha in the wintertime, if they had understood the implications of their decree.
SNIP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But even now, the Lord’s Resurrection is observed in Autumn in the southern hemisphere, where they also mark His Nativity at midsummer. It’s apparent that the weather has less than nothing to do with liturgical time.
Clearly, we’re inhibited by cultural conditioning, and that might well limit our ability to missionize successfully. We have to break free from some of this eurocentrism with all its ancillary considerations and implications.
A good place to start might be our universal adoption of the principles enunciated in the 1997 Aleppo Statement to determine the date of Paskha. Now THAT would be a worthy project for ‘The Great and Holy Council’ next year.
https://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/commissions/faith-and-order/i-unity-the-church-and-its-mission/towards-a-common-date-for-easter
(If the link won’t work, just google ‘aleppo statement easter’ to see what it is.)
Then — while keeping our observances intact and on schedule — we ought to take advantage of modern scientific time-keeping, atomic clocks and contemporary astronomy and other such tools as were unavailable fifteen or more centuries ago, and abandon both gregorian and julian reckonings in favor of more accurate calendrical measurements. BTW: The jewish calendar and its dating of Passover is not an issue for us Christians.
Truth: Nobody is really on the old calendar. Ask a new-calendarist when’s St. Nicholas’s Day; he’ll say December 6. Ask an old-calendarist when’s St. Nicholas’s Day; he’ll say December 19. Hello? Both will give you new-calendar dates!
Odds are, the old-calendarist won’t even know the old-calendar date for St. Nicholas’s Day. He’s lost that part of the tradition for every fixed feast. Some old-calendarist won’t even know the old-calendar date for St. Patrick’s Day, even though he’s reminded of it every year living in America.
So both old-calendarists and new-calendarists are living according to the new calendar, just not in accordance with each other. An ancient canon stands in the way of their koinonia. The canon was meant to preserve koinonia by keeping everyone on the same calendar; now, it prevents koinonia by keeping people out of sync. Isn’t it ironic?
That’s nonsense. Most published Orthodox calendars have both the Julian and Gregorian dates listed. You are being disingenuous. What stands in the way of koinonia iss the modernist decision of Patriarch Meletios IV’s synaxis of hierarchs. A synod without authority propagated a calendar contrary to Orthodoxy which was received by a minority of the Orthodox people The way back to uniformity should be clear. Simply go back to doing what the vast majority of Orthodox still do. As a bonus you would be able to reconcile the Old Calendar Greeks who are at least as pious, and probably more so, than New Calendar Greeks.
But that would not be “progress”, would it?
It’s not nonsense, and I’m not being disingenuous. I’m speaking from experience as a clergyman of an OC jurisdiction. A lifelong OC son of a priest asks me the date of my nameday, and I answer March 17. He asks, “Is that old calendar or new calendar?” No kidding. I give the traditional date of St. Patrick’s Day, and he doesn’t even recognize it.
Why? Because he doesn’t know the traditional dates of any fixed feast. Maybe he knows that Christmas is December 25, but there’s a good chance he doesn’t know that Annunciation is March 25, and the relationship between the two is lost on him, because he has grown up celebrating Annunciation on April 7.
I doubt that anybody in any OC jurisdiction knows both the old and the new dates of all our major fixed feasts. They don’t know them because they don’t need to know them. They only need to know the new calendar date because they live on the new calendar. The new calendar, and not the old, coordinates their daily lives with their liturgical lives. If today is April 7, they know they are to celebrate the Annunciation.
Sure, their calendars and their liturgical guides show both dates, but that’s more a hindrance than a help. Sometimes the NC date is first and sometimes the OC date is first, so you have to careful to avoid confusion. Old-calendarists could avoid all possibility of confusion by just dropping the OC dates. If they did, their liturgical life would not suffer.
Going on the Gregorian/Revised Julian calendar may have made a bit of sense 100 years ago, when churches like the Church of England or its American version (the Episcopal Church) were quite close to Orthodoxy, and some hierarchs, such as the recently glorified St Sebastian (Dabovich) of California, thought that the Episcopal Church may indeed come back to Orthodoxy someday as its western sister.
But now in the 21st century, with Protestantism and the Episcopal Church/Church of England collapsing and the Roman Catholic church not doing much better, why on earth would any Orthodox church want to adopt a Western calendar? Why on earth would we willingly hitch our beloved church to a sinking ship?
There are a million reasons to NOT go on the Western calendar. The only reason that I can see to adopt the Western/Revised Julian calendar is that it makes celebrating Christmas in North America or Western Europe “easier.” “Orthodox already feel strange celebrating Pascha on a different date than the West most of the time,” the thought goes. “Why make us feel more strange by celebrating Christmas on a different date?”
Obviously, calendars are not theology, and no calendars are of divine origin. I love the writings of some of our American Orthodox leaders from the 20th century like Fr Alexander Schmemann, who was in favor of the Revised Julian calendar. But our times in 2015, fifty years after Fr Alexander’s heyday, are incredibly different. We now bear little if anything in common with Western Christians. At best, Western Christians simply ignore us; at worst they think we are backwards, archaic, and irrelevant. Going to the new/RJC has done nothing to help Orthodoxy (um, it hasn’t made anyone like us better), but has done much to hurt us (caused unnecessary divisions among us).
One of the reasons propelling the adoption of the new/RJC calendar by the Greeks almost 100 years ago was to curry favor with the English Episcopalians in the hopes of getting Western/British help for the Greeks being terrorized by the Turks in Asia Minor. See how well that worked out…..
Orthodox are supposed to be different — our faith is not typical “American style” Christianity. Celebrating Christmas and the other feasts according to the old calendar is something else that sets Orthodoxy apart, that makes people ask “why do they do that?” It cultivates inquiry, which can lead to transformation in Christ. Isn’t that what we want?
Also in favor of the old calendar:
–the new/RJC calendar is a massive stumbling block to unity with the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox, all of whom are old calendar. You think the Copts or Ethiopians are going to become new calendar so they can go into communion with westernized Orthodox Christians?
–More than half of all of the world’s Orthodox Christians are old calendar. The Church in Russia (which alone accounts for more than half of all Orthodox Christians), the Church in Serbia, the Jerusalem Patriarchate, to name a few. Heck, 10% of Orthodox Christians in Greece are old calendar!
Bottom line: there are many, many compelling points in favor of the old calendar. There is not one good reason to be new calendar/RJC unless you consider making one’s life “easier” to be a good reason (and who with any familiarity with Orthodoxy believes that the church considers making our earthly lives “easier” to be a good reason to do anything)?
The answer is for all the new/RJC churches to back from whence they came: to join the rest of Orthodox Christians worldwide (including the non-Chalcedonians) on the old calendar. If we as Orthodox want to switch to a new calendar in the future, then by golly let’s do it, but let’s do it the right way in an Ecumenical Synod.
It is my belief that the new/RJC calendar will go the way of the former Russian westernized art-style iconography. Some thought it was a good idea at the time, but over the years it did not prove worthy of developing into a venerable tradition of the church.
Interesting points. As a convert the calendar issue has more or less gone over my head, as far as importance is concerned.
But I do have a serious question: how would reversion to the Old Calendar help unity with the Oriental Orthodox? The disunity has been going on since before the Arab conquest.
This has always seemed to me the most unfortunate of all the “disunities”, inasmuch as, if that one has not been possible to overcome after 14 centuries, what other breaches will ever be healed?
The fact that the Gregorian calendar is “Western” (oh, how scary!) has nothing to do with it.
The Julian calendar does not keep accurate time relative to the solar year and the seasons. The Julian calendar is like a clock with a weak battery. So change the battery.
For the purposes of Pascha, the Spring Equinox is defined as March 21, Julian. That is why we have Pascha up to 5 weeks after it should be, because the actual Paschal full moon is over by this date, so we have to go another lunar cycle past the proper date. (Interestingly, we don’t use astronomical observations to caculate the date of Pascha, it’s just a fixed date.)
As more extra days accumulate (because the Julian calendar assumes 365.25 days per year, instead of the correct 365.242 days; brass tacks, the Julian calendar has too many leap years), someday Pascha will be two months out of sync, because Julian March 21 will fall later and later relative to the solar year. Today it’s 13 days off, and in 2100 it will be 14 days. Eventually, a future Pascha will fall in (Northern hemisphere) wintertime.
If we want to correct it and call it something besides “Gregorian,” fine. But let’s stop this affectation.
The size of the earth’s orbit around the sun is not a popish plot to destroy Orthodoxy. And no bishop can dogmatically define the size of the earth’s orbit to be anything other than what it actually is.
Dear Texan;
There is absolutely NO REASON for Orthodox Churches to remain on the Old Calendar. There is no theological reason, so why? The Orthodox remained on the Old Calendar TO BE DIFFERENT. That’s it! The Old Country Patriarchs wanted Orthodox to be different from the rest of the world. Same with the date of Easter. If you read how the date of Easter (Pascha) is determined according to the 1st Ecumenical Council, you will see that the Western churches follow this and the Orthodox do not. The phrase, “NOT TO CELEBRATE WITH THE JEWS,” was taken out of proper context. So, all Orthodox Churches should catch up with reality and toss this Old Calendar stuff. And, the Date of Pascha needs to be resolved so ALL the Christians of the world can celebrate Christ’s Resurrection together. What the Jews do is of no consequence to what Christians do. The best suggestion for setting a common date of Easter (Pascha) is to have it on the 1st Sunday after the 14th of Nissan (April). The 14th is the probable date of Christ’s Resurrection.
My brother Mr. Toms,
You write, “The Orthodox remained on the Old Calendar TO BE DIFFERENT.”
The history is clear that it was not mere obstinacy that led to most of the world’s Orthodox Christians staying on the Old Calendar.
For one thing, when the new calendar was adopted, the largest Orthodox Church in the world could not participate in the discussions because its country was in the throes of a bloody communist revolution. Those Orthodox Christians who made it out of Russia alive were struggling for survival. They last thing on their mind was the validity of a new church calendar.
Yet the Churches who were switching to the new calendar knew this. They knew that many of their suffering brother and sister Orthodox Christians could not participate in the discussions to switch to a new calendar — they knew that they would create division in world Orthodoxy when unilaterally instituting a new calendar — yet they went ahead and did it anyway. Of course I don’t know the real reasons, but in my opinion the major motivating factor was to curry favor and aid from Western military powers.
But the fact remains that the new calendar was divisive from the start.
Of course, Orthodox on the new calendar are as Orthodox as anyone else. A calendar does not an Orthodox Christian make. Heck, I grew up on the new calendar and worshipped in new calendar churches most of my life. But I stand by my statement, that the new calendar has done nothing positive for world Orthodoxy and has only hurt our church by causing and perpetuating divisions among us. The only thing the new calendar has done is make it simpler for one to be Orthodox in Omaha.
I’m not upset or angry, brother, just stating things as I see them.
I disagree Ages.
When I and my brothers and sisters come together in our little store front mission church for the divine liturgy and the priest proclaims “Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”, the Church, in all Her fullness and completeness, her catholicity, becomes real, at that point in time. Neither she nor any of the other churches doing the same thing is deficient in any way, regardless of the calendar they follow, period. If the scenario I have described is true, then the only “unity” in calendar observance necessary is that of the worshipers in each local church because when they gather together as a whole and complete manifestation of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church then it is they who should be following their calendar. As long as each whole, complete, manifestation of the Church is reading from the same authorized page then each whole, complete, manifestation of the Church is on the right track and need not be distracted by the calendar bogey man and/or whether the Greeks or Antiochians or Russians down the road are “right”.
For those who say that the calendar issue is a stumbling block for potential converts well, just wait until they get into our doctrine and theology. Orthodoxy is already “not of this world”. The apparent weirdness of the calendar is small potatoes in comparison. I simply can’t imagine a serious seeker declining to even give Orthodoxy a glance because of the calendar issue. If that’s really going to be a “deal breaker” for a potential convert I’d have to wonder just what they were looking for in the first place.
Meletios Metaxakis is “credited” with introducing the so-called ‘New Calender”. Given the divisiveness it has caused since then I can’t help but wonder if it didn’t originate with another entity notorious throughout history for provoking division and animosity.
Freemasonry? You are correct sir.
Peter
And here I was thinking he meant the Devil….
Hi Tim,
The reality is that Freemasonry is the guardian and protector of the principles of the so-called Enlightenment that are the very bedrock of our Republic and Constitutional form of Government.
These principles are at odds with the Orthodox Faith and the Roman Catholic Faith, but NOT with Protestantism.
This is why you see Mason Lodges next to or connected with Protestant churches. I usually saw the Mason lodge connected to Methodist and Presbyterian Churches down in Clearwater, Florida where I grew up.
Here is the De Facto position of the Orthodox on Freemasonry:
________________
From The Rudder (1950 English Masterjohn translation), p. 550
THE APHORISM AGAINST FREEMASONRY
by Cyprianus, Archbishop of Cyprus
Cyprus, February 2nd, 1815
“Wherefore, clad in the sacred vestments of epitrachelion and omophorion we say, If any man preach unto you any other gospel than that which we have preached unto you, even though an angel from heaven, let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1,8,9) As many as are befitting, that pursue after such a diabolic and lawless employment of Freemasonry, and all they that follow unto their infatuation and unto their error, let them be excommunicated and accursed by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. After death, they shall be unpardoned, indissoluble, and bloated. Groaning and trembling, as Cain, shall they be upon the earth. (Gen. 4:14). The earth shall cleave and swallow them up, as Dathan and Abiram (Num. 16, 31-32). The wrath of God shall be upon their heads, and their portion together with Judas the betrayer. As angel of the Lord will prosecute them with a flaming sword and, unto their life’s termination, they will not know of progress. Let their works and toil be unblessed and let them become a cloud of dust, as of a summer threshing floor. And all they indeed that shall abide still unto their wickedness will have such a recompense. But as many as shall go out from the midst of them and shall be separated, and having spat out their abominable heresy, and shall go afar of from their accursed infatuation, such kind shall receive the wages of the zealot Phineas; rather let them be blessed and forgiven by the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Only unconfused and undivided Trinity, the One God in nature, and by us His servants.”
This is the APHORISM of the NATIONAL MARTYR, Cyprianus, Archbishop of Cyprus, who in the year 1821, during the Greek revolution against Turkey, shed his blood in defense of the liberty of his Greek homeland from Turkey. Likewise, Archbishop Hierotheus of Patras, Greece, published two comprehensive encyclicals against Masonry, one on October 5, 1897, and another on August 22, 1899.
*****************************
The Russian Orthodox Church’s Attitude towards Freemasonry was very forcefully proclaimed by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) the Presiding member of the Sremski-Karlovcy Synod in Yugoslavia, who is at the head of the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia.
On August 15, 1932, the Metropolitan issued a Pastoral letter to the faithful, entitled ‘An Encyclical on Freemasonry, Theosophy, and Allied Systems’, from which we quote some excerpts and its conclusions and the decrees the ROCA adopted concerning Freemasonry and related sects:
+
THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA TO ALL THE FAITHFUL OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH IN DIASPORA
15/28 August 1932
“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (I John iv. 1.)
If there was ever a time when these holy words of the beloved disciple of Christ, St. John, could find their most prophetic application, it is certainly ours.
Our troubled period is very poor in prophets. On the other hand, it abounds in false prophets. The world is becoming poorer in the “Spirit of God,” but waxes rich in the “spirit of error.”
“That old serpent, which is the devil, and Satan (Rev. 20:2) has poisoned and infected the hearts of men with many false doctrines, heresies, and sects, which he uses to seduce those whose faith is not solid, those who are not instructed in the knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, turning them away from faith in God, in the Church of Christ…
[There follows a closely documented examination of the general and higher level Masonic doctrines and aims from various Masonic sources and Constitutions. It also shows the ties of Freemasonry with revolutions against Christian States and the Church. It exposes clear connections of Freemasonry to the Russian Revolution. Finally, the conclusions state:]
“Freemasonry is a secret international organization to struggle with God, Christianity, and all National Governments, and especially Christian Governments.
“In the international organization the first place of influence and importance belongs to the Jewish membership. (i.e. Zionist, I added this clarification PAP)
“Because of this, and other important reasons it is forbidden for all Orthodox Christians to become Freemasons.
In view of what has been stated above, the Holy Council decides to:
(1) Condemn Masonry as a doctrine and an organization contrary to Christianity…. (2) Condemn equally all the doctrines and organizations having an affinity with Masonry, like Theosophy, Anthroposophy, all forms of “Christian gnosticism” [which would include such things as “Christian Yoga,” “Christian Zen, etc], and the YMCA. (3) Recommend to the diocesan bishops and to chiefs of missions to furnish their clergy with all information which may serve to enlighten the faithful regarding the above-mentioned erroneous doctrines and organizations…. (4) Recommend to pastors the necessity of questioning every person presenting himself for confession with a view to finding out whether or not that person is a member of a Masonic organization and whether or not he shares its doctrines. If it appears that the person is a member or shares its teaching, explain to him that participation in these organizations is incompatible with the name of Christian, with being a member of the Church of Christ. That he must take a firm decision to break with Masonry and with doctrines related to it; and if he does not do so, not to admit him to Holy Communion; and if he should refuse to repent, to excommunicate him from the Holy Church.
After having given you our pastoral recommendations concerning the enemies of God and of our salvation, we would remind you of the exhortations of the Holy Apostle: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints…. Building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.” (Jude 3, 20, 21.)
“Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?…. We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know Him that is true; and we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the True God, and eternal life.” (I John v. 4-5, 19-20.) Amen!
President of the Council of Bishops Of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia,
+Metropolitan ANTHONY
[Taken from: Rev. P. Kohanik-Christian Orthodox Light on Speculative Freemasonry, 1948, Passaic, N.J.; St. Nectarios Educational Series No.24 Excerpts from the Encyclical on Freemasonry, Theosophy, and Allied Systems]
*****************************
FREEMASONRY: THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF THE CHURCH OF GREECE (1933)
The Official Statement
The Bishops of the Church of Greece in their session of October 12, 1933, concerned themselves with the study and examination of the secret international organization, Freemasonry. They heard with attention the introductory exposition of the Commission of four Bishops appointed by the Holy Synod at its last session; also the opinion of the Theological Faculty of the University of Athens, and the particular opinion of Prof. Panag Bratsiotis which was appended thereto. They also took into consideration publications on this question in Greece and abroad. After a discussion they arrived at the following conclusions, accepted unanimously by all the Bishops.
“Freemasonry is not simply a philanthropic union or a philosophical school, but constitutes a mystagogical system which reminds us of the ancient heathen mystery-religions and cults–from which it descends and is their continuation and regeneration. This is not only admitted by prominent teachers in the lodges, but they declare it with pride, affirming literally: “Freemasonry is the only survival of the ancient mysteries and can be called the guardian of them;” Freemasonry is a direct offspring of the Egyptian mysteries; “the humble workshop of the Masonic Lodge is nothing else than the caves and the darkness of the cedars of India and the unknown depths of the Pyramids and the crypts of the magnificent temples of Isis; in the Greek mysteries of Freemasonry, having passed along the luminous roads of knowledge under the mysteriarchs Prometheus, Dionysus and Orpheus, formulated the eternal laws of the Universe!
“Such a link between Freemasonry and the ancient idolatrous mysteries is also manifested by all that is enacted and performed at the initiations. As in the rites of the ancient idolatrous mysteries the drama of the labors and death of the mystery god was repeated, and in the imitative repetition of this drama the initiate dies together with the patron of the mystery religion, who was always a mythical person symbolizing the Sun of nature which dies in winter and is regenerated in spring, so it is also, in the initiation of the third degree, of the patron of Freemasonry Hiram and a kind of repetition of his death, in which the initiate suffers with him, struck by the same instruments and on the same parts of the body as Hiram. According to the confession of a prominent teacher of Freemasonry Hiram is “as Osiris, as Mithra, and as Bacchus, one of the personifications of the Sun.”
“Thus Freemasonry is, as granted, a mystery-religion, quite different, separate, and alien to the Christian faith. This is shown without any doubt by the fact that it possesses its own temples with altars, which are characterized by prominent teachers as “workshops which cannot have less history and holiness than the Church” and as temples of virtue and wisdom where the Supreme Being is worshipped and the truth is taught. It possesses its own religious ceremonies, such as the ceremony of adoption or the masonic baptism, the ceremony of conjugal acknowledgement or the masonic marriage, the masonic memorial service, the consecration of the masonic temple, and so on. It possesses its own initiations, its own ceremonial ritual, its own hierarchical order and a definite discipline. As may be concluded from the masonic agapes and from the feasting of the winter and summer solstices with religious meals and general rejoicings, it is a physiolatric [nature-worshipping] religion.
“It is true that it may seem at first that Freemasonry can be reconciled with every other religion, because it is not interested directly in the religion to which its initiates belong. This is, however, explained by its syncretistic character and proves that in this point also it is an offspring and a continuation of ancient idolatrous mysteries which accepted for initiation worshippers of all gods. But as the mystery religions, in spite of the apparent spirit of tolerance and acceptance of foreign gods, lead to a syncretism which undermined and gradually shook confidence in other religions, thus Freemasonry today, which seeks to embrace in itself gradually all mankind and which promises to give moral perfection and knowledge of truth, is lifting itself to the position of a kind of super-religion, looking on all religions (without excepting Christianity) as inferior to itself. Thus it develops in its initiates the idea that only in masonic lodges is performed the shaping and the smoothing of the unsmoothed and unhewn stone. And the fact alone that Freemasonry creates a brotherhood excluding all other brotherhoods outside it (which are considered by Freemasonry as “uninstructed”, even when they are Christian) proves clearly its pretensions to be a super-religion. This means that by masonic initiation, a Christian becomes a brother of the Muslim, the Buddhist, or any kind of rationalist, while the Christian not initiated in Freemasonry becomes to him an outsider.
“On the other hand, Freemasonry in prominently exalting knowledge and in helping free research as “putting no limit in the search of truth” (according to its rituals and constitution), and more than this by adopting the so-called natural ethic, shows itself in this sense to be in sharp contradiction with the Christian religion. For the Christian religion exalts faith above all, confining human reason to the limits traced by Divine Revelation and leading to holiness through the supernatural action of grace. In other words, which Christianity, as a religion of Revelation, possessing its rational and superrational dogmas and truths, asks for faith first, and grounds its moral structure on the super-natural Divine Grace, Freemasonry has only natural truth and brings to the knowledge of its initiates free thinking and investigation through reason only. It bases its moral structure only on the natural forces of man, and has only natural aims.
“Thus, the incompatible contradiction between Christianity and Freemasonry is quite clear. It is natural that various Churches of other denominations have taken a stand against Freemasonry. Not only has the Western Church branded for its own reasons the masonic movement by numerous Papal encyclicals, but Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian communities have also declared it to be incompatible with Christianity. Much more has the Orthodox Catholic Church, maintaining in its integrity the treasure of Christian faith proclaimed against it every time that the question of Freemasonry has been raised. Recently, the Inter-Orthodox Commission which met on Mount Athos and in which the representatives of all the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches took part, has characterized Freemasonry as a “false and anti-Christian system.”
The assembly of the Bishops of the Church of Greece in the above mentioned session heard with relief and accepted the following conclusions which were drawn from the investigations and discussions by its President His Grace Archbishop Chrysostom of Athens:
“Freemasonry cannot be at all compatible with Christianity as far as it is a secret organization, acting and teaching in mystery and secret and deifying rationalism. Freemasonry accepts as its members not only Christians, but also Jews and Muslims. Consequently clergymen cannot be permitted to take part in this association. I consider as worthy of degradation every clergyman who does so. It is necessary to urge upon all who entered it without due thought and without examining what Freemasonry is, to sever all connections with it, for Christianity alone is the religion which teaches absolute truth and fulfills the religious and moral needs of men. Unanimously and with one voice all the Bishops of the Church of Greece have approved what was said, and we declare that all the faithful children of the Church must stand apart from Freemasonry. With unshaken faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ “in whom we have our redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our sins, according to the riches of His Grace, whereby He abounds to us in all wisdom and prudence” (Ephes. 1, 7-9) possessing the truth revealed by Him and preached by the Apostles, “not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in the partaking in the Divine Sacraments through which we are sanctified and saved by eternal life, we must not fall from the grace of Christ by becoming partakers of other mysteries. It is not lawful to belong at the same time to Christ and to search for redemption and mora1 perfection outside Him. For these reasons true Christianity is incompatible with Freemasonry.
“Therefore, all who have become involved in the initiations of masonic mysteries must from this moment sever all relations with masonic lodges and activities, being sure that they are thereby of a certainty renewing their links with our one Lord and Savior which were weakened by ignorance and by a wrong sense of values. The Assembly of the Bishops of the Church of Greece expects this particularly and with love from the initiates of the lodges, being convinced that most of them have received masonic initiation not realizing that by it they were passing into another religion, but on the contrary from ignorance, thinking that they had done nothing contrary to the faith of their fathers. Recommending them to the sympathy, and in no wise to the hostility or hatred of the faithful children of the Church, the Assembly of the Bishops calls them to pray with her from the heart in Christian love, that the one Lord Jesus Christ “the way, the truth and the life” may illumine and return to the truth who in ignorance have gone astray.”
Reprinted from: Borichevsky, Rev. Fr. Vladimir S. and Jula, Rev. Fr. Stephen N., Masonry or Christ?, Ch. V.
_____________
Now given these above statement there is NO unified Proclamation by the ENTIRE Orthodox Church that is against Freemasonry. Again growing up in Clearwater, Florida and going to Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church I saw many Greeks going to church and taking communion that were members of the Masons. They proudly wore their Masonic pins on their lapels, and Masonic rings on their fingers. No priest ever denied them communion.
Now do I feel uneasy by the Masons? Yes, does their secrecy bother me? Yes, somewhat. I know where it comes from, but do not understand why in the 20th and now 21st Centuries they still have it as the threat of death no longer exists for expressing the principles of the Enlightenment.
Were the Mason directly responsible for the division that occurred in the Church in 1923 when the Greeks unilaterally and without any authority Changed the Calendar without the ENTIRE authority of the Church? YES!
The Greeks had no reason to do it except for political and economic reasons to bring the New Nation of Greece into the Modern “Western” and “European” age. The Greeks, as Greek, NOT as Orthodox, wanted to be Modern at the expense of their Orthodoxy.
The masons heavily influenced and was connected to the Greek Secret Society the “Philiki Eteria.” These guys were at the forefront, among others, of breeding the sentiment of Revolt as well as Modernity. By the time of the start of Greek War of Independence in 1821 and the Support of the Philhellenes and Britain Greece wanted not ony Freedom but to be part of Europe and the Modern world.
Orthodoxy was ridiculed, or downplayed. Many Greeks at that time, like Adamantos Koraes, were devout Orthodox Christians, but heavily criticized the Clergy, especially the Bishops, for keeping the People in a semi-Dark Ages as well as being corrupt in many ways.
All of this finally came to a tipping point in 1923 where the Greek Government wanted modernity and a link with Western Europe because Greeks were the founders of Western European civilizations were could not be left behind. It was that Hubris that led to the Calendar Change led by the masonic EP that split Greeks in two and has kept the Canonical Greek Orthodox separated from the Old Calendar Greek Orthodox to this day.
Many beatings, deaths and atrocities towards Greeks who stayed devoted to the Old (Patristic) Calendar occurred and embittered Greeks towards each other, again, to this day. Greek Orthodox fought with Greek Orthodox. The Greek Orthodox had their Civil War over this issue before the national Greeks had their Civil War over Communism between 1945-49. My parents were faithful canonical Greek Orthodox Christians, that always kept the Patristic Calendar in the house and my mom always taught me the feast days on both Calendars.
You see it was never really about the Calendar, but the heresy of Modernism, and the Freemasons are the direct supporters and promoters of Modernism (i.e. the Enlightenment). The Church is the one that controls time so whatever Calendar the Church wants to follow, as long as the ENTIRE Church agrees to it, I am good with that. THAT did not happen here and since 1923 Greek Orthodox have been split and Modernism was allowed to infect the Church
So I am not exactly warm towards the Masons as you can see, nor towards the stupidity and hubris of my own people, and that’s putting it lightly.
Everything that is happening in the Orthodox Church today IMHO is because the Greeks let in Modernism with the Calendar Change. Would I love for us to go back? Sure. Would I love for us to adopt a whole new and scientific Calendar, which is currently being used by scientific organizations and entities like NASA? Yes, even better. But if we as Orthodox do not renounce the heresy of Modernism whatever calendar we use won’t mean a darn thing.
So if you like Modernism, as pushed by modern Western Societies, founded on the principles of the enlightenment that are supported and promoted by the Mason’s as “American” Values, then get used to Gay-Friendly Orthodox Churches and stop complaining.
If, like me, you hate Modernism then support the Elder Ephraim Monasteries and Traditional Orthodox belief and practice and be faithful to your local parish and obedient to your Bishop, even if he is bad. Prayer and living a life committed to the Gospel works to change many things, even bad Bishops. Give it a shot.
Peter
Peter
Sounds basically like the Protestants’ “invisible church” theory to me.
I’m not saying the calendar is a stumbling block. I’m saying it is a historical accident that has no real reason for being, and now it has become a sort of affectation.
Quite right Ages. As far as I can tell no one, from the E.P. on down has ever, ever provided a compelling argument for why the calendar change needed to be implemented for the spiritual well-being of the people!! To have not been mindful of how disruptive this would be was reckless.
I agree with you, Ages. But just try telling your views to some of these Old-Calendarists. There is a thing as Holy Tradition, and there is a thing as clinging to the past for the wrong reasons. After all, I don’t think Pope Gregory was trying to change doctrine when he allowed leap years.
Reply to Ages. Couple things to consider and these things I have come upon the net and few places elsewhere. First with regard to the “accuracy” of the Julian calendar and the Gregorian calendar. Accuracy for what? When mathematician scientists and astronomers do their long-term calculations of celestial cycles they do them in the Julian calendar, not Gregorian. In fact, they must take Gregorian data, convert it to Julian, then do the calculations.
What is the purpose of a calendar in the first place? Why not celebrate New Years every year exactly as to when it returns to a set point, it being the Earth? That would be 365 days 6 hours and 12 minutes. So every year instead of popping the champagne at Midnight you would be doing it lets say at 6 AM and 12 minutes. And then from there at 6:13 AM you start a New Year of the precise time around the Sun, 365 / 6 hours twelve minutes. Well there would be some problems with that, obviously. So a calendar is a numeric system. The calendar takes the Celestial Cycles, and approximates the Year to the closest numbers .. “rounded off.”
In the Julian, that is 365 days and 6 hours, .. even, no minutes. And that is it. No corrections, no adjustments. Every fourth year you have an Feb. 29th to account for the six hours, four times six twenty-four. Yes, this does result in what we know, and we believe the Alexandrian school of astronomy knew and the Holy Church Fathers knew would result in .. “calendrical procession.”
So along comes Pope Gregory in the 16th century and says you know Vatican Astronomers, we have this calendrical procession thing going on and we want Santa to always come around in the winter don’t we? So they instituted a fix. Every other Century, once every two hundred years that is, we take a Feb. 29th and eliminate it, just like they eliminated a whole entire week plus a day or so when they initiated their reform. That was their fix, I believe we saw that in Y2k, a leap year that wasn’t. So much for accuracy! Yes, it does for all intents and practical purpose halt calendrical procession, however not entirely, mathematically. This Feb. 29th they eliminate every other century is the “monkeys wrench” that scientists cannot deal with in their long-term celestial calculations so they cannot use it, the Gregorian numerical system, calendar. Also, Gregorian calendar is based on a “Tropical Year” that measures the length of the shortest day to longest day night of course being inverse. Julian Calendar is a “Sidereal Year” measuring a Year when the Earth returns to a set point relative to a fixed star in the sky. Scientifically, one precise circle without overlap is a Sidereal Year.
There is also known among mainly scientists and astronomers a tremendous phenomenon in the Celestial Sphere relative to the numeric Julian Calendar. It is called I believe the “The Grand Injunction” or the “The Grand Celestial Cycle” of 532 years. Every 532 years all the cycles of the Earth, Sun, Moon return to one set point, and start all over again anew. The date, the day of the week, and the phase of the moon. On this you have the basis of the cycle of Church Services, the Typicon. With the Gregorian Calendar there is no Grand Injunction or if there is it would be millions of years, no one would ever know, not even Vatican astronomers.
Church Fathers regarded “calendrical procession” as fine. In the Northern Hemisphere the celebration of both Nativity and Easter will have a gradual shift in the Seasons, in the Southern Hemisphere also likewise to what we are more accustomed to traditionally. Pascha is the “Spring” of the heart, spirit, as has been said.
Someone was mentioning that Pascha over many thousands of years could merge into Nativity on the Julian Calendar. That is incorrect. The window for Pascha and Nativity move simultaneously in the calendrical procession. Now in the “Revised Julian Calendar” that could happen theoretically, Nativity will remain fixed and Pascha with the Paschalia would merge. In some ways then the “revised” calendar winds up being the most heretical.
I need to make a correction on one point. The Tropical Gregorian year is in fact calculated not at 365 days 4 hours and then the 11 or 12 minutes or whatever it is however “minus” those 11 or 12 minutes. That doesn’t change anything about what I wrote, just only to clear any confusion though if any was caused by that.
Thank you for the correction. Now all is clear.
Mr. Mortiss,
I am happy to discover that, for you, all is now clear. If you world please be so kind as to provide an executive summary to me at im_a_dumbass@simpleton.com. Many thanks.
Well, don’t ask me to explain it; it’s sort of a celestial clarity thing– can’t be put into mere words.
As long as the Paschal Full Moon is tied to a calendar date — March 21 or something — rather than astronomical observations, the Julian Paschalion can also drift relative to the seasons. Pascha will fall in the wintertime eventually.
March 21st is the designated date of the Vernal Equinox. This date just like any other date including Dec. 25th cycle thru all the seasons in many thousands upon thousands of years, that which is referred to as “calendrical procession.” As Pascha in the Northern Hemisphere goes thru Spring Summer Autumn Winter to return to Spring so will Nativity also do the same keeping its approximate 3 month spread from the window of the Paschalian, always.
Church Fathers knew about the “calendrical procession.” For them it was “fine.” They established the “ecclesiastical” Julian Calendar which was the basis for the Typicon, the Cycle of Church Services which was to be for always and ever a continuous uninterrupted cycle always consistent and unchanged, that is what they intended and established with the Ecclesisastical Julian Calendar.
The need for “astronomical accuracy” which in this case is the notion or idea of keeping Nativity always in the Winter and Pascha in the Spring in the Northern Hemisphere was not their objective, that in of itself is not of any necessity to the Church Calendar, the Julian Calendar. What was of “necessity” was having the correct cycle of Orthodox Church Services, therefore they established a set Julian date of March 21st as the date of the “ecclesiastical” Vernal Equinox of which before this date you cannot have the celebration of the Pascha Feast Day.
For too many people this idea or notion of the Gregorian Calendar of having some sort of “accuracy” because it fixes the dates of the calendar to a certain time in the Tropical Year, time of season, misses the point and the purpose of the Ecclesiastical Julian Calendar. The Gregorian Calendar, even on its own terms, only has relative “accuracy” in attaining its objective of affixing calendrical dates to the times of the season all the same. Its been commented by authoritative Orthodox Teachers that this “reform” of Pope Gregory was one of the very worst things that ever has happened in the Church because it divided Christendom. Also, I think just from an observational point of view and intellectual argument aside, it is well known that in the Holy Land at the Sepulcher of the Lord the Holy Fire always appears on the Julian date of Pascha and not the Gregorian.
In the southern hemisphere, Pascha is always in the fall, Christmas at the height of summer. At the equator it is eternal summer, and in the Arctic and Antarctic regions Pascha is always in the winter. Just in the US, I have personally celebrated Pascha in the snow and I have celebrated it when air conditioning was necessary.
The same would be true under the Gregorian calendar. I personally have no problem with the idea that tens of thousands of years from now, those in the southern hemisphere willl have a turn at a winter Christmas and a spring Pascha. Many tens of thousands of years later, it will eventually come back to the northern hemisphere. Who knows how the climate and seasons will have changed by then.
Of course all of this presupposes that the earth will still be around and that Orthodoxy will have remained unable to agree on how to worship together.
What matters is that we should worship together, and it remains one of the greatest acts of hubris and lack of love that the EP drove this calendar change without first obtaining universal consensus to do so.
My personal feeling is that the New Calendar churches should return to the Old as an act of love and humility, that we should worship together on it for the same number of years that we have been separated by the calendar change. Then, all of the churches together should revisit the issue and go with whatever the Spirit moves. Anyone involved with the old polemics will be long dead, and I suspect agreement won’t be hard to come by when those making the decisions both have some corporate memory of the unpleasantries of disunity and personal experience of nothing but unity.
If anyone doesn’t like my idea, relax and have no fear — I am completely harmless and without influence. No church decision-maker has my number on speed dial.
The Julian Church Calendar was established at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea 325 AD where we know some of the greatest luminaries of the Orthodox Faith presided and they pronounced that “it was good for the Spirit it was good for us” and so thats it, the Church Calendar was established, you have no “revisiting” here or any kind of debate amongst Bishops or Councils of Bishops, there is no prerogative for any changes to the Calendar. The “reform” of Pope Gregory was a departure from the Catholic Orthodox Faith just as the “New” calendar also is likewise, only thing here is for those who departed for them to return. You do not have a Council and then decide alright, we all go into this heresy together, lets say “for the sake of unity,” it does not work that way. Scripture says “there must be heresies amongst you,” divisions, and when that happens then “thy rational flock” has to exercise its rationality and not accept the false teaching and go into departure from the Faith of the Church Fathers, this has always been a central tenet of the Orthodox Faith, to stay true to the Faith and not change anything that already exists as Church Tradition.
“The Julian Church Calendar was established at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea 325 AD”
Oh?
Can you quote the Fathers of Nicea on that?
Where to begin?
1. The Julian calendar was established in 45 BC by Julius Caesar. It was the civic calendar used in the Roman Empire at the time of the First Ecumenical Council.
2. The First Ecumenical Council did not establish the civic calendar as the Church Calendar. Rather, it used the existing calendar to establish the fixed feasts, such as Annunciation (March 25) and Nativity (December 25).
3. The dates for the movable feasts revolved around Pascha, which was set in reference to astronomical events, to be precise: the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox. Later, the Church decreed that for the purposes of calculating this date, March 21st was to be considered as the date for the Vernal Equinox. The important thing to remember is that the Vernal Equinox at that time fell on or very close to March 21st in the Julian Calendar.
4. The integrity of the Church Calendar is the important principle if we are to continue to be an Apostolic Church. The Julian civic calendar is not to be conflated with the Church Calendar, for doing so not only mocks the Fathers but also God’s creation: He set the heavens in notion and established the various astronomical events which happen in God’s time. The pagan Julian Calendar is drifting more and more from God’s time and no longer is in consonance with Holy Tradition.
5. Thus, the churches who deviate from the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council are those churches who are still using the Julian calendar.
YES LET’S REHASH THE CALENDAR ISSUE. IT HASN’T RECEIVED ENOUGH ATTENTION.
It is probably more accurate to say that the Julian Calendar was the one upon which the Church calendar was established at Nicea. And it is not a matter of doctrine but of canonical discipline for the good order of the Church. It could be changed, but it should be done, if at all, by an Ecumenical Synod or by unanimous agreement of the local churches.
And the “Reformed Julian” calendar was a poor, poor effort at “modernization” to be more like the heterodox. Originally they wanted to just switch to the Gregorian calendar (as well as make all sorts of other changes, some of which did not fly). In a way, that might have been better. As it is, the New Julian calendar will eventually diverge from the Gregorian, the Apostles’ fast is often shortened or eliminated, certain other traditional feasts disappear (like when the Annunciation and Pascha coincide) and it will become impossible to plan services according to the typikon at a certain point because of the hybrid nature of the new calendar.
“5. Thus, the churches who deviate from the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council are those churches who are still using the Julian calendar.”
When someone makes an assertion like this, which is really just a bold lie rationalized, in order to condemn those who are doing what the Orthodox have always done, it is a clear sign that the truth is not in them at all and conversation is futile.
Misha wrote ” ‘5. Thus, the churches who deviate from the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council are those churches who are still using the Julian calendar.’ When someone makes an assertion like this, which is really just a bold lie rationalized, in order to condemn those who are doing what the Orthodox have always done, it is a clear sign that the truth is not in them at all and conversation is futile.”
Since Misha is calling my conclusion a “bold lie” and that I do not have “the truth in (me),” allow me to respond. What I said is indeed bold and I have never said it before, perhaps because I did not want to hurt feelings. It seems to me that reactionaries like Cy and Misha can dish it but cannot take it. Too bad.
But, what I said is not a lie; I truly believe that as an Apostolic Church, as our Creed proclaims, we must be faithful to the Apostolic Fathers/Church, as well as having the proper Apostolic succession. I truly believe that the adherents to the Old Calendar are deviating from the praxis of the Church in the Apostolic Era. It is a conviction on my part and I have explained it logically step by step. Apparently, Misha knows this because he preemptively declares that conversation is futile. Nevertheless, I am going to turn the other cheek and will refrain from returning the insult.
Yesterday’s Epistle reading was from St. Paul’s letter to Titus:
“But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.”
I wonder about “calendars” after genealogies……but I doubt if “calendars” was yet an issue!
I wish the calendar issue were as meaningless as genealogies, but because of the calendar issue I cannot celebrate most feasts of the Church WITH MY OWN CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN, because I am on the old calendar and they are on the new — yet we are all Orthodox.
Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell says:
CANNOT? Is Pdn BPMpersona non grata in his children’s and grandchildren’s churches? Can he not invite his own children and grandchildren to his own church?
@ Carl Kraeff
>”The pagan Julian Calendar is drifting more and more from God’s time and no longer is in consonance with Holy Tradition.”<
So are you implying that the "patch" or the "fix" of Pope Gregory back in the 16th Century where with sleight of hand he ordered 8 or 9 days to magically disappear is "Holy Tradition" ?
Really?? Talk about "reactionary."
The "Old Calendar" i.e. more commonly known as the "Julian Calendar" that the Old Calendar Churches are on is not the "pagan" Julian Calendar however the "Ecclesiastical Julian Calendar." This is the same Church Calendar that the Roman Catholics were on themselves for over a millennia and a half.
So are you really actually saying that Pope Gregory's "magic trick" was somehow "God's design" and/or "Holy Tradition"? What basis do you have for that? And "God's Time?" I hope you are not telling us thats the Gregorian Calendar, civil, pagan, "church" or otherwise.
And I really hope you are not trying to say or imply that "God's time" is the "revised" Julian, that would just be too Ptolemaeic.
CY questioned my use of the term “God’s time” and continues to conflate a civic calendar (Julian, Gregorian or Revised Julian) with the Church Calendar. The problem seems to lie in misunderstanding what the various terms are. I will try to explain:
God’s time: The passage of time is marked with various events that are measurable. The rotation of earth on its axis (commonly understood to be a day), the rotation of earth around the sun (one year), the relative position of the earth vis-a-vis the sun (the equinoxes and the solstices). These events are not dependent on any man-made calendar. On the contrary, they are dependent upon God’s ordering of their movements and on His grace for maintaining them so.
Civic calendar: An attempt to convey God’s time. It is done based on measuring astronomical phenomena and coming up with a standardized timeline that is not 100% exact but is close enough. Wikipedia defines it perfectly: “A calendar is a system of organizing days for social, religious, commercial or administrative purposes. This is done by giving names to periods of time, typically days, weeks, months, and years.” The problem with any calendar is that it has to be less than 100% exact in representing the astronomical phenomena. To be 100% exact would be too complicated and impractical. So, a year is on any of the currently used calendars is said to be 365 days and not 365.25 days. To keep the civic calendars get back on God’s time, all of the civic calendars above use leap years (366 days) in differing ways. Hence, the principle here is to be as faithful to God’s time as possible.
Church calendar: This is a schedule of when the fasts and feasts of the Church are to be celebrated. The schedule can use any calendar; Nativity is to be celebrated, for example,on December 25th, and it is indeed celebrated on that date in each of the three civic calendars that we are talking about. Since the Church calendar is independent of the civic calendar, it is necessary for our purposes to use that civic calendar that best approximates the calendar that the Apostolic Church was using. In early Fourth Century, it is clear that the Church was celebrating Nativity on or very close to the Winter Solstice, that is in late December, not in January as the folks on the Old calendar now do. BTW, since the Julian calendar gets more and more inaccurate with the passage of time, those folks who are wedded to it will end up celebrating Nativity in the Spring, Summer and Fall. Sure, millennia from now they will end up back on God;s time and will actually celebrate it on December 25th as reckoned by those who use the Gregorian and Revised Julian Calendars. I can only imagine the horror they will feel.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/photii_2.aspx
It really does not sound like anyone involved with the institution of the “New Julian” calendar had the slightest respect for Tradition. But I invite you to draw your own conclusions.
Misha writes “It really does not sound like anyone involved with the institution of the “New Julian” calendar had the slightest respect for Tradition.”
Bravo, MIsha! You have identified the real issue in this discussion on the calendar. The issue is how genuine Orthodox react to the following statements:
“The Christianity that originated with Jesus and his apostles was merely the starting point of a series of theological developments that continued to evolve over the centuries.”
OR
“The theology that emanated from the New Testament, continued through the church fathers, was guarded by the Apologists and solidified in the ecumenical church councils, represents a continuous uninterrupted stream.”
The source for these cites is “Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity” by two Protestant theologians who attribute the first view to Cardinal John Henry Newman (Roman Catholic cleric in 19th Century England) ) and the second view to Fr. John Behr (the current Dean of St. Vladimir’s Seminary and Professor of Patristics). While this book was written to rebut the Bauer/Ehrman theory (it demolishes it IMHO), it is remarkable that the authors side with Fr. Behr for obvious reasons. First, Cardinal Newman’s approach is myopic in attributing the authority of Holy Tradition to the present or the immediate past. Second, it makes mincemeat of the credal affirmation that the Church is Apostolic, by allowing current teachings and praxis to trump those of the Apostolic Church. Third, Cardinal Newman’s approach is one that makes possible for the Roman Church to proclaim Papal primacy and infallibility by using the circular reasoning that is inherent in that approach: since the Holy Spirit guides the Church/Pope, whatever is proclaimed or practiced by the Church/Pope is correct.
I can understand criticism of the way that the New Calendar was rolled out. I can sympathize with those who claim that it was adopted to further a rapprochement with the Roman Catholic Church. I cannot understand those who make this an element of Holy Tradition and thus a criterion of orthodoxy. I think that the latter are prisoners of the Roman Catholic mentality that is shown by Cardinal Newman above. It does not surprise me since they belong to a segment of the Russian Church that was heavily influenced by the Roman Catholic Church.
@ Carl Kraef reply. Ok, once again your “God’s time” is no part of any Church Teaching or Holy Tradition. It is only the “rationale” employed by the Latins, Pope Gregory and his Vatican astronomers back in the 16th century, to keep Nativity always in the Winter and Pascha in the Spring in the Northern Hemisphere. The key point you miss is that the Ecclesiastical Julian Calendar does in fact .. decouple .. from the Seasons. To the Church Fathers having a consistent calendar, 365 365 365 and 366, always, always, was the most significant matter. On this they could base the Cycle of Church Services, the Typicon. With Pope Gregory’s “patch” or “fix” that is not the case, the Typicon is breached. That formula they have where every so many Centuries they artificially eliminate a Leap Day, they divide some whole number into some other whole number and it essentially comes out that every two to three hundred years or so they drop a Leap Day. Last example was Y2K, a Leap Year that was not.
The Seasons will always be the Seasons, Orthodox Feast Days fixed or moveable have no need and no requirement in Orthodoxy to always in perpetuity be affixed to only one Season in one Hemisphere. I think for some people it is just too difficult to conceive of Nativity or Christmas not in the Winter. There are just too many customs, same with Pascha Easter in the Spring Northern Hemisphere. However in some future Age a “Winter” Pascha may reveal some unknown to us now customs and traditions as a Summer Nativity. You can have Christmas tree lights in the Tropics on a Palm tree and presents underneath.
Pope Gregory’s reform really did not do all that much in and of itself. They eliminated about a week or two initially and then created a formula for eliminating a leap day every several centuries or so, and thats it, no real “rocket science” after all. Sorry, that contrivance is not “God’s Time” or as you had put it an attempt at “approximation” of “God’s Time,” nope, it does not work that way. Also, when we look at the History of the Orthodox Church, Pope Gregory’s “reform” was only understood as another “filioqe” or “immaculate conception” or “papal primacy” or you name it, a Latin heresy. Also this one more thing here, the “seasons” are in fact only a part of this visible physical world, with Adam and Eve everything became ‘fallen’ in the world, and in the “visible” skies as well, Jesus Christ with His Resurrection restored all to Grace, however the “world” in physical manifestation and form remain as they are with the fall of Adam and Eve, and that does not change until the Second Coming. I think Fr. Seraphim Rose wrote about this in his book on Creation.
Cy wrote: “@ Carl Kraef reply. Ok, once again your “God’s time” is no part of any Church Teaching or Holy Tradition.”
I beg your pardon! I had thought that Psalm 104 meant something tangible when it proclaims “He made the moon to mark the seasons, and the sun knows when to go down. You bring darkness, it becomes night…How many are your works, Lord! In wisdom you made them all..” It turns out that this was perhaps penned by the evil Roman Pope, using time travel to go back and whisper in the psalmist’s ear.
Cy continued “To the Church Fathers having a consistent calendar, 365 365 365 and 366, always, always, was the most significant matter. On this they could base the Cycle of Church Services, the Typicon. With Pope Gregory’s “patch” or “fix” that is not the case, the Typicon is breached.”
First, I would like to have some evidence to back up this bold assertion. Please cite an Ante-Nicene Church Father who wrote in support of this “365, 365,365, 366” cycle. Second, are you truly serious when you assert that the Typicon cannot be adjusted? Is the Typicon unchangeable, something like the Quran or the Book of Mormon that were handed from on high? Or, are you one of those Typicon/rubric worshipers that unfortunately exist in Orthodoxy?
I am going to skip over the alternate universe ruminations regarding Christmas in summertime In the Northern hemisphere. What an imagination!
Carl,
Surely you realize that it is not the Russians who make the calendar issue one of doctrinal divergence. That would be the Old Calendar Greeks.
As to my comments and quotes on the New Julian calendar, it was instituted for the worst possible reasons and screws up the construct of feasts and fasts, will eventually diverge from the Gregorian, will eventually make it impossible to plan services according to the typikon, and has caused untold grief from the divisions it has created. All for no reason whatsoever other than heterodox-envy.
Let’s dispense with this silly canard regarding astronomical time. The Julian calendar diverges from the astronomical time at the rate of about one day every 128 years. Thus for Pascha to occur in summer, we would have to wait another 6,272 years. In order for Nativity to fall in the spring, we would have to wait 9,728 years.
Surely Christ will return long before these astronomical “travesties” occur.
Thus, there is absolutely no excuse for the existence of the “New Julian” calendar. So your point about the New Calendarists being the ones following “the spirit of Nicea I” is sheer lunacy. The instigators of the New Calendar, from a deep seated inferiority complex regarding the west and utter contempt for Holy Tradition, foisted an awful attempt at calendar correction on parts of the Orthodox world silly enough to go along. And that’s the long and short of it.
Back to Carl Kraef,
Please, lets not reach too far deep into the hat. Protestants, if not agnostics and atheists frequently will open a page somewhere in Scripture, of the many thousands of passages and verses and then come up with something that for them then proves something.
Of course, Psalm 104, there it is, wisdom in the stars and skies, so then therefore, the Pope’s contrived formula of dropping Leap days, yes of course, directly corroborated by the Psalm.
There is wisdom in a seashell also. An ordinary household fly can fly circles around your most highly advanced and technological drone. A potato bug also has immense wisdom in its design
that man’s most advanced technologies cannot replicate. There indeed is tremendous wisdom of God in the stars and skies be it “fallen’ or not ‘fallen’ it is all God’s Creation all the same.
Now how you equate Pope Gregory’s mathematical gimmickry with the wisdom of Creation and the stars and the skies, just quoting a Psalm, there just simply is no correlation.
The Ecclesiastical calendar of 365 365 365 and then every fourth year a 366 leap year is the Julian Calendar, there are no Leap Years where they drop the Feb. 29th. Its been that way since 325 AD First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. So what “quote” of what Father are you looking for, that has been the Liturgical practice that will go back as far as St. John Chrysostom we know for sure.
Yes, Christmas in Summertime, such “imagination!” No reindeer, no wintry scenery, Black Friday also might seem displaced, the Macy’s Parade, in the Summer, how can that be? Not only worldly Oxford theology professors however I believe also Orthodox Teachers have commented on the fact that the Nativity actually could have taken place in the Spring. Dec. 25th however was the Winter Solstice and in pre-Christian pagan times they had the pagan winter solstice holiday. Christianity has been known to take pre-Christianization pagan customs and incorporate them into the Christian Faith, in Russia you had that with the “sun-god” both in some church practice, the “Sun God of Truth” if not entirely accurate translation, and then with Feast Day blintzes, so forth. With Pascha there of course is the Vernal Equinox and Season was all part of the equation, and as things are today, 2015, Pascha is never to be celebrated before the Vernal Equinox, in the sky, and it never is, with the Roman Gregorian calendar however this rule does get broken from time to time and Easter not in accordance is celebrated with or before the Jews even if not before the equinox. And a wintry Pascha? Easter bunny in the snow? Orthodoxy does have the primary characteristic of preserving the Truth and that time, people, politics change but Gospel Truth does not, one hand, and on other hand Orthodoxy does have a dynamic side to it as well where things do not remain static and always in one place however within the unchangeable Truth many new insights things to be learned. In his monastery cell St. Seraphim of Sarov (can anyone imagine someone like him on “new calendar”!) read the whole entire New Testament every week, and he said he was always learning something new each time he read it.
I know the Central Planning Committee met this week-have they officially called the farce off yet?
2016 comes after only a few months….
George,
Nice article and nice presentation of the situation. I would only like to add that one of the most fundamental issues facing the assembly on its road to Orthodox unity in the Americas is the fact that there is no way to overcome the various language and cultural differences among the various jurisdictions. An Arabic speaking community can not have a bishop from Greece or Russia who is not proficient in Arabic and vice versa. It would be nice to say that we should all use English but the reality is that is simply impossible. Some YaYa from Athens or a little old babushka from Moscow who speaks little to no English should not be forced to speak English just because we say it’s the right thing to do. The U.S. is just a melting pot. Let’s accept it and move on. I for one applaud both ROCOR for their letter to the assembly several months ago which touched upon this issue and the recent missive from Metropolitan Joseph of the Antiochian Archdiocese. As the metropolitan said, he took an oath to the Patriarchate of Antioch, not the OCA, the GOA, ROCOR or some Ecumenical Assembly. The same is true, I’m sure, of every other hierarch. Their loyalty is to their flock, not someone else’s flock.
For years now I have listened and read people’s comments about the “canonical anomalies” in the world, particularly the Americas. Honestly, it is a canonical anomaly based on what? A fifth century canon? Not to point out the obvious, but the world has changed. And the migration patterns have changed as well. Do we really expect the thousands and thousands of Syrians and Lebanese Christians that have fled to Germany to suddenly start using German in their worship services? Who could possibly be a better bishop to these people than an Arabic speaking priest from Syria or Lebanon? Just a little common sense would be nice.
Anyway, thanks for the article.
It’s anomalous based on Pentecost. The canons should be relevant to our situation, yes. But should not undermine the universality of life in Christ. There’s no principled reason a Russian and an Arab cannot struggle toward salvation under the same bishop.
Indeed, there is no principle involved at all.
Our current situation is anomalous only in the sense that it fails to correspond to ancient and inapplicable canons.
The canons were made for the Church, not the Church for the canons.
At Pentecost people heard the Gospel being preached in their own language, whatever that was. We are correct to want teaching and preaching in English but we cannot deny others the hearing of the Gospel in theirs. The Apostles appointed Greek and non-Greek deacons for the same reason.
The disputes have always been with us.
Immigrants should have a priest that speaks their language, but that doesn’t mean the bishop needs to.
The Russians took good care of Arabs in North America before 1917.
Very true. One can only imagine what unity there would have had St. Patriarch Tikhon been allowed to work freely, but a certain lawyer had other ideas.
You mean that lawyer in Switzerland?
Rocor=No, Antioch=No, Bulgarians=No, OCA/MP= “Autocephaly”…back to SCOBA with their new name. I’m not surprised. Even the Greek Catholics have overlapping ethnic dioceses in the USA. If the POPE can’t fix this problem with the power of universal jurisdiction do we really think our bishops will when they can’t even agree on a calendar and an official English translation of the Liturgy?
George, thank you for publishing this very important document from Metropolitan JOSEPH.
Whatever else this publication accomplishes, it considerably reduces my own anxiety and sense of despair.
I am convinced that jurisdictional unity—anytime soon—would be a disaster for the Orthodox Church here in Chicago.
Dear Father Patrick,
Why do you say that? It seems to me that a lot of good could be done for the Orthodox witness to potential converts if we had unity in America. Unified calendar, translations, pastoral practices, administration, etc. Why does it need to be a power game? Can’t we all just be Christians together? “Neither Jew nor Greek”…nationality is not important. Christ is.
You’re partly right here Jacob. Unity, or at least a convincing appearance of unity would be helpful vis-a-vis potential converts. It clearly causes many converts no end of grief. Alas, solving the various issues to everyone’s satisfaction would take forever. A unified calendar? Which calendar? Administration? Whose in charge? You may like him/them but maybe I don’t trust them? Maybe I’ve heard things about them and I spread them around on the internet, followed by denials and more accusations and recrimination. You have been following this blog haven’t you? Just look at the chaos our brothers and sisters in the OCA have been slogging through these many years. I’m not even in the OCA and it wore me out! And nationality? Everyone wants to get away from a “national” church in favor of–an American (national) church. How long would it take to come up with a simple majority who could agree what an American (national) church would look like?
I once heard Fr. Hopko say that to claim oneself to be Orthodox was to claim that one was in possession of the Truth. Well, I’m in possession of the Truth and no amount of chaos within the Church can take that away from me.If the Lord should require my soul of me at this point in my life, and I subsequently find myself standing before the dread judgement seat of Christ, my preoccupation with the internal squabbles of the Church will never be a sufficient answer for why I failed to do what I was supposed to do: Pray, fast, confess my sins, repent, attend the services of the Church, pray for others, do for others, forgive and love my enemies, and fight against the evil that is self-pity. But, as usual, I preach to the choir.
Here’s the thing about that, Jacob. I’m pretty sure unification of the church would not have much affect on evangelism. If there were to be any unification in practice, it would likely be in favor of more liberal/lax practices observed in the GOAA, the reason being that they are the largest Orthodox presence in North America. So, if there were unification of practice, those seeking traditional Orthodox worship would find no home.
As it stands, what you have is a smorgasbord so that each can find his own. A disaffected Catholic who simply wants beautiful liturgy and stable doctrine can go to a Greek or Antiochian church and feel comfortable without standing continuously for 2 hours. A person who actually wants full, frontal Orthodoxy can go to a Russian or Serbian parish and practice what has been done from time immemorial.
Given that neither group is going to conform to the others practices, the only benefit to “unity” would be that everyone would be under the same Metropolitan/Archbishop. Yet are we going to abolish the non-geographical (i.e., overlapping) ethnic dioceses?
When you really take a look at what unity entails, you soon see that it is a chimera as far as the benefits some imagine for it.
(Example on) So here is the reason we have no unity. If you want stable and edifying doctrine, with an authentic divine liturgy you should go to a Greek or Antiochian Orthodox Church. If you want fake fundamentalist discipline and stringent fasting practices that turn people offand always have then you should go to a Russian Orthodox Church. (Example off).
Do you see now the hatred and suspicion we have for each other? I don’t hold these views expressed above, but I can assure you many do. You expect unity from this? George is right this is a non starter and very off putting.
Lord have Mercy!
Peter
Peter,
I was simply saying that the Greeks’ Byzantine Episcopalianism is more stable and beautiful (certainly not “edifying”) than Roman Catholicism (not Russian Orthodoxy). So, relatively speaking, it may be good that disaffected Catholics that have been completely spoiled by Western “it’s all about me” Christianity have an “Orthodoxy-lite”, hopefully as a bridge for them or their children to true orthopraxis.
But I think you know what I meant. Of course, 100 years ago there was no Orthodoxy-lite . . .
As opposed to ROCOR Orthodox Fundamentalism that never existed 100 years ago and kept ROCOR outside of Canonical Orthodoxy for years until the Communists brought them back into communion with them in 2007? Hmmm?
Peter
Untrue!!!! ROCOR was always in full communion with the Serbian Orthodox Church from the day of its founding.
What you said is untrue. Please read:
http://journal.orthodoxtheologicalschool.org/GansonV_ROCOR_World_Orthodoxy.html
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/schmem_azkoul2.aspx
Fr. Stanley Harakas also states in his book “The Orthodox Church 455 Questions and Answers” that ROCOR was un-canonical.
Don’t know about the SOC, but I do know about the history of ROCOR being non-canonical. NOT now, but in the past.
Peter
Peter,
On the contrary, ROCOR was widely regarded as canonical prior to the 1960’s and, oddly enough, the Metropolia’s own experts thought that the Metropolia’s canonicity was in question because of its association with ROCOR, that being the reason for the rapprochement with the KGB dominated MP.
By the way, the link you included above is an apology for ROCOR’s canonicity vs. Schmemann:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/schmem_azkoul2.aspx
Also, the first article you referenced begins with this:
“During the course of its more than eighty-year existence, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) found itself increasingly on the periphery of World Orthodoxy. While this was certainly in part attributable to the complex and extraordinary circumstances of its temporary separation from the Moscow Patriarchate, no less a factor was the Church Abroad’s principled stance against the scourge of modernism and ecumenism within the Orthodox Church. Despite being comparatively tiny in terms of its flock, ROCOR from its inception never shied away from speaking out in support of the truth. The tone was set by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), a highly-respected and authoritative figure in the Orthodox world, and continued on accordingly through the years. In many ways, ROCOR served as the conscience of the Orthodox Church, upholding tradition and attempting to bring those with either ill or misguided intentions back to sobriety. As large segments of World Orthodoxy began to succumb to the trappings of the modern world and lead others astray, the resolutely traditional Church Abroad became a significant thorn in their side. Now, with the Act of Canonical Reunification with the Moscow Patriarchate having passed, ROCOR finds itself again in the fold of World Orthodoxy. In light of this, it is timely to examine the historicity of ROCOR’s relationship with other Orthodox jurisdictions, particularly as relates to modernism and ecumenism.”
That’s hardly a criticism. Furthermore, later in the same article there is this:
“Various arguments were used in an effort to undermine the canonical legitimacy of the Church Abroad and thereby suppress its voice. While revisionist historians intent on discrediting the message of ROCOR may have claimed otherwise, the facts show that the Church Abroad was an acknowledged member of the Universal Orthodox Church (with the exception of the Moscow Patriarchate, of course). [15] It was only with the “spread of ‘ecumania’ and the vocal opposition of Metropolitan Philaret to it, the Synod is viewed as ‘schismatic’ and uncanonical.’” [16] “It was precisely the opposition of the Church Abroad to communism, ecumenism, and the calendar change which led to its alienation from Moscow and Constantinople, following the birth of the “ Living Church” in Russia and its support by the innovators who had come to power in the Great Church of Constantinople following the Russian Revolution.” [17]”
Moreover, though the article speaks of the reconciliation between the MP and ROCOR as a restoration of canonical relations, the article does not suggest that ROCOR was uncanonical at any point, just that those other jurisdictions which wished to view it that way no longer could pretend that ROCOR was uncanonical:
“Thus, the Russian Church Abroad bore an onslaught on unfounded attacks on its canonicity by Fr. Alexander Schmemann and other clerics of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), largely due to the Church Abroad’s principled stance against the heresy of ecumenism. Certainly, with the OCA’s “penchant for modernism, minimalism, ecumenism, and sterile academic ‘theology’” [19] it is no wonder that Fr. Alexander found ROCOR to be quite a significant nuisance. Thus, calling ROCOR’s canonical basis into question and implying that ROCOR is but a group of schismatics provided a cheap means of discrediting the substance of the message. As for the OCA’s dubious canonical basis, “this canonical irregularity will continue to be overlooked in practice and deemed unimportant by the other Patriarchates as long as the OCA adheres to what is of greater concern to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in particular, the path of modernism and ecumenical unity.” [20] Of course, the times are changing, as the Church Abroad now stands to have its own stance and voice bolstered through the re-establishment of canonical relations with the Moscow Patriarchate. The historically momentous re-establishment of this relationship demands ROCOR’s acceptance as a canonical entity by World Orthodoxy. Thus, jurisdictions such as the OCA are no longer able to call ROCOR’s canonicity into question in an attempt to undermine the validity of the Church Abroad’s stance.” – http://journal.orthodoxtheologicalschool.org/GansonV_ROCOR_World_Orthodoxy.html
You might want to read what you reference a bit more closely.
Peter,
Ignorance does not become you. ROCOR was widely recognized until the early 1960’s when they began to distance themselves from other jurisdictions due to the other jurisdictions’ ecumenism. Read Met. Kalistos’ book The Orthodox Church if you doubt me. They were always in communion with Serbia and also almost always with Jerusalem.
“ROCOR fundamentalism” is simply the way Orthodoxy has always been. It was the only Orthodoxy there was for many centuries. ROCOR, Athos, the Athonite monasteries here in the USA, the Serbs, Jerusalem, the Old Calendar Greeks, et al. preserve traditional Orthodoxy in our time.
I will quote Fr. Harakas’ later to you. However, ROCOR’s non-canonical status has never been in doubt in the past.
Peter.
Fr. Stanley Harakas, THE ORTHODOX CHURCH 455 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, page 249, heading: RUSSIAN CHURCH IN EXILE.
“The Russian Church Outside Russia came into being following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917. When the Patriarchate of Moscow was reestablished, they (ROCOR) refused to recognize the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate. All other canonical Orthodox Churches recognize the Moscow Patriarchate. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (also known as the Russian Church in Exile, and -unofficially- as the “Synod” Church), rejects the universally accepted participation of the canonical Orthodox Churches in the ecumenical movement. This Church (ROCOR) is uncanonical, but could become canonical if it were to seek communion with the canonical Orthodox Churches. At present it has the status of a schismatic Church. The canonical Orthodox Churches do not exclude them, they exclude themselves. ” Seventh Edition 1987.
Peter
Yes, he was dead wrong, Moreover, ROCOR was connected indirectly even at its most isolated to the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Jerusalem Patriarchate. It was always canonical, although some nefarious ecumenists falsely asserted otherwise. That was the point of one of the articles to which you yourself linked – http://journal.orthodoxtheologicalschool.org/GansonV_ROCOR_World_Orthodoxy.html
Modernists have always been pathetic liars when it comes to traditional Orthodoxy.
ROCOR was invited to participate in the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops of America (SCOBA) established in 1960 at the initiative of Archbishop Iakovos (Patriarchate of Constantinople). In his reply, however, Metropolitan Anastasii stated that ROCOR would participate in the conference only if representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate were excluded, which was unacceptable to Archbishop Iakovos.[30] At times, an uncompromising stand in regard to the communist government was, within ROCOR, as significant an issue as protecting the true Orthodox faith; in other words, resistance to communism was perceived as an inseparable part of protecting the purity of the faith. – http://www.rocorstudies.org/articles/2008/11/18/the-development-of-russian-orthodox-church-outside-of-russias-attitude-toward-other-local-orthodox-churches-and-non-orthodox-christians/
Also, it is mentioned in the same article that then Fr. Kallistos Ware (now Met. Kallistos) served at the ROCOR Annunciation Convent in London as late s the mid-1970’s and that there were also instances when ROCOR clergy served with clergy of the Patriarchate of Constantinople during the same period.
That fact is that ROCOR was in the process of distancing itself from new calendarists and ecumenists but the whole period was fairly disorganized. ROCOR was also assisting Old Calendarist Greek clergy, all the while being in communion with Serbia, Jerusalem, and erratically with other “canonical” churches.
In retrospect, because of their ecumenism, the Greeks may choose to remember the ROCOR as being uncanonical. However, it should be remembered that the Greeks recognized the “Living Church”, a communist front designed to replace the true ROC, with the Pat. of Constantinople going so far as to prohibit Russian clergy from commemorating Pat. Tikhon. It was a dark, dark time for Constantinople and it’s not a lot brighter today. The New Calendar Greeks have no conscience whatsoever when it comes to ecumenism and modernism.
What Fr. Stanley says is important as what he doesn’t say. What he is saying is what was said about the time relations broke down between the Metropolia (now the Russian Orthodox Church in America [OCA}) and was further inflamed by ROCOR’s response the participation in the Ecumenical Movement by Orthodox Churches.
What he didn’t say was that when the Russian Bishops that abandoned their Sees going into exile were given refuge in Serbia, While in Serbia they formed a Synod in Exile (ROCOR) in Sremsky-Karlovaci with the full knowledge and blessing of the Serbian Orthodox Church. There has never been a break in communion or the canonical status of ROCOR with the Serbian Church. They existed as a parallel jurisdiction for Russians on the territory of the Serbian Church until they moved to Jordanville.
ROCOR and Serbian hierarchs and clergy have served the liturgy together, communed together and canonically transferred clergy between each other from the time of ROCORs beginnings in Serbia while the Serbian Church maintained good canonical relations with the Moscow Patriarchate and the rest of Orthodoxy. My bishop as well as myself have served with ROCOR Bishops and clergy before the 2007 unity with the MP. I even served a liturgy with our saintly ever memorable Patriarch Pavle and ROCOR clergy.
Additionally our Serbian Church maintains at least one seminarian at Jordanville as means of maintaining ties with ROCOR. ROCOR clergy have studied at Serbian seminaries. ROCORs Bishop Peter of Cleveland studied at a Serbian seminary in Serbia.
Fr. Stanley is either selectively picking facts to portray ROCOR as noncanonical Church or just misinformed. As it appears you are. As with all things in Orthodoxy you cannot read just a few sources and be an expert which happens all to often on web forums.
Yes, I am misinformed, and ROCOR’s past is squicky clean. I love the excuses and name calling as that tells me and everyone else that ROCOR was uncanonical for legitimate reasons. Also, I love the part where Misha says that ROCOR helped the OC Greek Orthodox. So are the OC Greeks misunderstood like ROCOR was? Are the OC Greeks just distancing themselves, but are really canonical like ROCOR was? So many questions with answers ROCOR won’t like.
In any event ROCOR is canonical now, but it should own up to its sin of disobedience, just like the OC Greeks.
Further I don’t necessarily disagree with ROCOR or the OC Greeks in regards to the Pan Heresy of Ecumenism, but schism was and still is NOT the answer, hopefully now ROCOR will stay and fight ecumenism instead of cutting and running away like the OC Greeks did.
I never liked that aspect of ROCOR and I definitely don’t like it among the OC Greeks. No matter how bad it got we needed you both to stay. Hopefully one of you will stay now and fight not only ecumenism, but the infection of communism that still exists in the MP.
I will pray for you all.
Peter.
Peter,
No one ever said ROCOR was squeaky clean. It’s just that the way the NC Greeks dealt with their own OC dissenters and with ROCOR was so indefensibly dirty. They will reap that whirlwind for generations.
Peter, what name did Fr. Milan call you or anyone? If you believe that he is lying that Serbian clergy concelebrated with ROCOR clergy, and that he was himself was present when Patriarch Pavle of holy memory did so — please come right our and say so.
“Non-canonical” is just as much name calling as is labeling someone an “ecumenist” or whatever. In my experience, that term was nothing more than a verbal baseball bat with which some liked to hit the ROCOR over the head. As has been pointed out, ROCOR was invited to join SCOBA — an inconvenient truth, as they say. Other points:
Does anything in the act of restoration of communion between the ROCOR and the MP state or imply that the ROCOR was uncanonical?
What do you do with the fact that the late Metropolitan Philip refused to accept clergy from the ROCOR unless they had a canonical release?
Are you aware of a single instance in which a ROCOR clergyman was received into what you call a “canonical” jurisdiction in which that clergyman was required to be preordained or required to formally renounce his former uncanonical ways?
Are you aware of a single instance where a ROCOR layman who was baptized in the ROCOR went to a “canonical” church and was required to be chrismated, or even to make a renunciation of errors, or when he was told that it was forbidden to him ever to return to a “non-canonical” ROCOR parish for communion?
Both of my long-time ROCOR priests told me that one of the hardest things for them (they were on the strict side) was turning down repeated invitations to serve with clergy of other jurisdictions. If they were “non-canonical,” why did they get those invitations? Several Greek priests that I knew over the years expressed to me that they made a point of inviting their ROCOR brethren to concelebrate with them, and were sad that they were not allowed to. Why would they have extended those invitations to “non-canonical” priests? On at least one occasion, a GOA priest visited our parish while on vacation rather than going to the local GOA parish — he was invited to pray in the altar, and he accepted. What do you know about the ROCOR’s ‘uncanonical” status that all of these priests didn’t? Both priests belonged to their city’s Orthodox clergy association — one even held a leadership position. Why would this happen if the ROCOR were “uncanonical”?
………
I will add further that the whole question of intercommunion was, in my experience, a complex one and varied between clergy, and it varied in different decades of the ROCOR’s existence. The Synod of bishops itself seemed to be careful not to make any statements that were precipitous or drew hard lines. Both of my long-time priests in the ROCOR were strict and did not want their parishioners to commune at parishes that were in jurisdictions in communion with the MP — but both also were blunt about the fact that they knew that many if not most of their parishioners ignored those wishes and intercommuned anyway. They shrugged their shoulders about it.
When I was a member of non-ROCOR churches and visited ROCOR churches while traveling, I went to communion and confession and was never refused. Nor did my non-ROCOR priests ever tell me that I couldn’t go to “non-canonical” churches to receive communion.
My take-home was that the only people who followed those guidelines were either Russians with some sort of hard-core personal investment in the cause — or pliable converts like myself who did what our priests asked of us. This was a major source of contention between my priests and me — I loved the ROCOR and its ethos, but wanted proof in writing that the Synod of Bishops actually forbade their parishioners from intercommuning. I never got it.
The truth is that there was a small but very vocal strain within the ROCOR that had been heavily influenced by Greek Old Calendarist thinking — which is far more invested in matters of religious ideology than was old-school ROCOR separatism, the latter being built on a refusal to be in communion with a church it felt was in captivity to atheist forces. When reunification happened, that portion (commonly estimated at 10% at most) of the ROCOR that was ideological in the Greek Old Calendar manner left the ROCOR and will never return.
My impression throughout my entire time in the ROCOR was that the separation of the ROCOR was entirely self-imposed, and that any ROCOR clergyman would have been welcome to serve at non-ROCOR parishes (except the rare case where the priest had some sort of chip on his shoulder), and that ROCOR laymen were always welcome to commune at non-ROCOR parishes.
My impression was that most ROCOR clergy were fine with their laity communing wherever they pleases — I just didn’t happen to have one of those priests. And most ROCOR clergy, it was my impression, had no qualms about serving with Serbian and Jerusalem Patriarchate clergy at a minimum — although the fact that they had some very vocal brother clergy who disagreed probably kept most of acting on those convictions, and kept them quiet about it when they did.
“Modernists have always been pathetic liars.” – Mischa.
“New Calendar Greeks have no conscious. ” – Mischa.
So Edward Fr. Milan did not name call, but Mischa did.
Further, as you stated ROCOR’S uncanonical status was self-imposed. Just like Fr. Harakas stated we did not separate from them (ROCOR) they separated from us. They (ROCOR) separated themselves.
ROCOR is back now and all is forgiven, but not forgotten. Like I said before I hope they stick around this time, and not leave like they did before.
Like you said Edward the Greeks asked them to come and serve with them and ROCOR said no. According to your own words they separated (schism) themselves. So how again was Fr. Harakas wrong? Hmmmm?
Peter
Peter,
What I actually wrote, rather than what you might have wished I’d written, was this:
“The New Calendar Greeks have no conscience whatsoever when it comes to ecumenism and modernism.”
and
“Modernists have always been pathetic liars when it comes to traditional Orthodoxy.”
And you can take both of those statements to the bank, as true as it gets. And thank you for helping me prove the point.
By the way Edward I love your deflection. To say you are straining would be a colossal understatement:
The truth is that there was a small but very vocal strain within the ROCOR that had been heavily influenced by Greek Old Calendarist thinking
OC Greeks bad, but ROCOR good, OR ROCOR would have been good if not for those big bad OC Greeks. Man even the like minded OC Greeks are bad to the Russians. Can’t win, just can’t win.
Peter
Peter, so when one church breaks communion with another church they become non-canonical? That spells trouble for Antioch. I sense a chip on your shoulder, especially with your ominous “not forgotten.” And this from the man who counsels me on how careful I need to be about my criticisms of the current (not to mention past) actions of the EP. You can’t have it both ways.
You responded to none of my specifics, and you haven’t explained why you responded so uncourteously to Fr. Milan. When I was a member of a GOA parish (long before reu ification), the elderly Greek priest (a bit of a “modernist,” frankly), once started a sermon by saying that there were two Russian churches in the US — the OCA and the ROCOR. He then proceeded to read something he liked from the latter — from Fr. Seraphim Rose. It was actually a helpful moment for me, and even though I preferred the ROCOR, my next parish ended up being a happy long stint in the OCA. If the Greeks didn’t get worked up about OCA/ROCOR politics, why should I.
This was typical of my experiences with GOA priests — they looked at it as an irrelevant (to them) Russian dispute. Frankly, most of them seemed to like the ROCOR better, even though they were in communion with the OCA. I have heard more anti-ROCOR snark from you in a month than I heard in 20 years from GOA priests (which was none).
Listening to you, I wonder, in fact, whether ROCOR stock has dropped with some Greeks since the reunification — because of EP/MP friction. Is the supposedly noncanonical history just a red herring?
Peter, the influence of Greek Old Calendarist thinking on ROCOR ecclesiology during their time of isolation is well-documented, and mostly surrounded Holy Transfiguration Monastery and those groups associated with that monastery. This is pretty uncontroversial and has nothing to do with chauvinism.
I have a great love for Greeks and the Greek spiritual tradition. Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos is one of my favorite Orthodox writers, and Fr. John Romanides had insights that were truly groundbreaking. I could go on at length about all of the many good qualities that I see in the Greek spiritual tradition that Russian tradition often lacks, but somehow I don’t think it will stop you from portraying me as some sort of anti-Greek.
I do have problems with the EP as a political animal, but I admire what Alexandria has been doing on the missions front, have deep respect for the fathers of the Holy Mountain, and I appreciate the ways in which the Jerusalem Patriarchate has remained traditional (although I am not blind to the occasional stories of financial corruption there). I also find a lot to admire in many parts of the Church of Greece. I have been a member of a GOA parish and loved every minute of it and loved the people. My kids went to Greek school and were in the Greek dance troupe, and we were deeply involved in the social life of the church. It was there that I learned to read enough Greek that at my next parish (an OCA parish), I was the guy who read and chanted things in Greek when we did baptisms, funerals, and memorial services for Greek families in the parish — they considered me to be “one of theirs.”
Even when I was in the ROCOR during its years of isolation, I regularly attended liturgy at local Greek parishes, because I simply liked being around Greeks, and they seemed to like me. I didn’t commune there out of respect for my ROCOR priests, but the fact that I wasn’t allowed to commune without being disobedient was the source of a couple of good rows between me and my ROCOR priests. In short, there are lots of people who would have a really good laugh over the way that you are trying to paint me as some sort of anti-Greek.
When with Greeks and if the subject naturally came up, I didn’t make any bones about the fact that I didn’t care for the EP schmoozing with the pope — and guess what? I got far more responses of “yeah, I know” than I ever got stony silences or arguments. But then, I was in fairly conservative parts of the country and the Greeks I was around were on the conservative side of the GOA spectrum.
So give it a rest, Peter.
Edward the only chip I have is for people casing schisms in stead of staying a fighting. We are stronger together then apart. I also hate the fake so-called traditionalism of ROCOR types. You claim to call Greeks modernists when they are some of the most devoted. Maybe it’s my mom’s teaching in me that sought the simplest of faith and left the so-called exteriors to poseurs.
Let me give you an example. Many on here would call Michael Stankovic a modernist, and yet his faith is real, true and based completely on the fathers, councils, and scriptures, but because he and others don’t meet ROCOR faux rigorness then he’s a modernist and his Orthodoxy dismissed. Glad to say you are not the arbitrators of all thing Orthodox.
So I am glad ROCOR is finally “with us” as they should never have left, but they did. Further, yes Edward I am careful. Careful to tell my brothers to stay and fight with us and not to run away. Careful to tell the Archons when they are wrong based on real facts, and not on assumed facts. Careful when I criticize you and Misha to still consider you Orthodox when you both exclude others from our faith.
So again Edward and Misha do be careful of what you say because God is listening, and God does does not care about empty sacrifice, but a broken and contrite heart Psalm 50.
Peter
Peter, it is impossible to have a discussion with someone who will not or cannot read what I write, and who instead attacks what isn’t there. I get that you have the omniscience to determine whose piety is fake, and to know who is and isn’t canonical. You will find nothing of the sort in anything I have written. And please feel free to ask Michael Stankovich directly whether I have ever written anything that so much as implied a questioning of his Orthodoxy.
I kind of lost interest in this when I read the post by Peter suggesting that somehow the monks of Athos were exercising a positive influence on the Phanar by “staying in the tent”. That is quite laughable.
ROCOR was always “canonical”. It did break communion from time to time with this or that other jurisdiction. Abp. Iakovos would not have invited them to join SCOBA were it otherwise. Now, it should go without saying that refusing to join in some little dead end synaxis does not make one “uncanonical”.
Nor would breaking communion with another jurisdiction. In recent memory, Romania and Jerusalem have been out of communion, the Phanar and Greece have been out of communion (over a few little provinces in the North of Greece). Antioch and Jerusalem have been out of communion, etc. So, which one is uncanonical and where does the True Church reside?
Peter and Carl have no idea what they’re talking about.
One other thing:
My original comments were directed at the fact that American culture has become so decadent that it has an acidic effect on traditional religion, Orthodoxy included; and furthermore, that the two most “Americanized” jurisdictions are the most affected by this acid. As the mainline protestants have gone, as the Roman Catholic Church is going, so goes also the “American Orthodox”.
The reason behind this is also clear: To take one issue, homosexuality is reviled as filthy, sick and evil in both Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Jurisdiction based in these areas must answer to Moscow, Belgrade, Jerusalem and Damascus.
I don’t think that that is a particularly controversial observation.
Edward writes:
Peter, it is impossible to have a discussion with someone who will not or cannot read what I write, and who instead attacks what isn’t there. I get that you have the omniscience to determine whose piety is fake, and to know who is and isn’t canonical. You will find nothing of the sort in anything I have written. And please feel free to ask Michael Stankovich directly whether I have ever written anything that so much as implied a questioning of his Orthodoxy.
RESPONSE: So you attack me and tell me I should not attack you because that stops us from having a conversation? Huh?
Also, I think you should read what I wrote: “Many on here would call Michael Stankovic a modernist, and yet his faith is real, true and based completely on the fathers, councils, and scriptures…”
I don’t think I saw your name anywhere in there.
________
Edward also writes:
I do have problems with the EP as a political animal,
RESPONSE: Well Edward I am glad you know the heart of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Let’s give the example of the current Pope and his embrace of Kim Davis. Many would have liked this to have been announced and public.
Now If the Pope did this his entire visit to the U.S. would have been derailed and his overall pastoral duties to his flock and his message to the congress diminished if not completely ignored. the Press would have had a field day.
However, he did it in private and ONLY when he was on his way back home did he let the news get out AND express his feelings on religious liberty via Kim Davis.
So yes Edward some times, many times our Clergy are political for the greater good. In Turkey no law explicitly prohibits proselytizing or religious conversions; however, many prosecutors and police regard proselytizing and religious activism with suspicion. Police occasionally prevented Christians from handing out religious literature. Proselytizing is often considered socially unacceptable; Christians performing missionary work are beaten, insulted, their property confiscated and/or deported. Fundamentalist Muslims even kill the person converted and the people doing the conversion. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0425/p07s02-woeu.html
Edward shall I tell you how many massacres have occurred to Greek, Assyrian and Armenian Christians in Turkey? The City of Smyrna was destroyed within the matter of days where it had existed for over 3000 years.
Also Edward, being that you and others on here are the arbitrators of all things false with the EP and his non existent evangelizing efforts, have you ever considered this: http://www.cafebabel.co.uk/athens/article/15000000-crypto-christians-in-turkey.html
If this report is even 50% true or 25% true that’s still a lot of Crypto-Orthodox Christians. I am sure glad you and others know how bad the EP is or how he is slacking in his duties. I didn’t know Edward that you had such a prominent seat on the EP’s Holy Synod to be privy to such things. With the conditions the EP lives under this still occurs. I wonder what he and the Armenian Patriarch and the Assyrian Christians and other Christians are doing to not only survive, but thrive in Turkey?
The false narrative of the EP failing in his Christian duties is further erroded by this: http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/05/turks-becoming-orthodox.html
However, I am glad you know that the EP is NOT doing his work and is just one big bad NC ecumenist that, THANK GOD, Mt. Athos rightly criticizes. I guess he should just leave Turkey and abandon his See. Abandon all the people in Turkey that may actually listen to him. LISTEN TO THE GOSPEL! Do you know what goes on in the hearts of men and women that he is having NO impact?
Further, I am surprised that you make ROCOR so weak minded that the big bad OC Greeks can manipulate and mentally alter the brains and motivations of ROCOR to make them extreme. Basically you are saying to me: “Peter, you are correct that ROCOR is extreme, but it was those darn OC Greeks that made us extreme.” Soooo, the devil made me do it, right? Ok, good luck with the one.
Finally, attacks or not always know one thing I try very hard to tell it like it is with care and compassion, but when people insist and say its all “A’s” fault and “B” is right as rain then I get going because that’s not human nature and that’s someone else talking. Please try to think for yourself. It has many benefits. I guarantee you it does.
Further, even though I am loyal and obedient to the EP, I still do criticize the EP as well, but not to the point of hatred. Unfortunately, you veered into that direction with the EP and Greeks. Misha is already there with his hatred, as well as Retired Bishop Tikhon. In fact, Bishop Tikhon does the same thing you just did. He tell us about his Greek girlfriend ever time I catch his Hatred for Greeks showing. You did the same Edward. Don’t do that. You can be better than that.
Finally, if I hated you or didn’t like what you have mostly written in the past on various subjects I would have dismissed you and stopped wasting my time with you a long time ago. But you are worth it because your heart comes through in your posts, and its a good heart. So again, be careful what you say about the EP as others, myself included, should be careful what we say about the MP.
They are engaged in their global chess-match, not us. Let them fight it out. Be no man’s pawn. Just live your Orthodox Christian faith.
In the end Edward I want REAL unity on the basis of faith. I really don’t care about administrative unity. Only people with agenda’s that have nothing to do with us care about that stuff.
There how about that conversation? I bid you peace.
Peter
Peter, that was not a conversation, it was a lecture. You again either ignored or misrepresented or evaded most things I have said. Instead, you just wrote about what you wanted to write about.
1. You write: “you attack me…”
Where exactly did I attack you? I said that you had the omniscience to know whose piety was fake. How did I know this? Because you said so: “I also hate the fake so-called traditionalism of ROCOR types,” and it is pretty clear to whom you were directing your “poseurs” comment. Same for my saying that you knew who was canonical — it is all above for you to read in your own posts.
2. You write regarding your comment on Stankovich: “I don’t think I saw your name anywhere in there.”
Then why did it have any place in your response to me if you didn’t mean it to include me? I am one of two self-identified ROCOR people that you regularly single out for obloquy, and you wrote this: “because [Stankovich] and others don’t meet ROCOR faux rigorness then he’s a modernist and his Orthodoxy dismissed. Glad to say you are not the arbitrators of all thing Orthodox.”
So, Peter, who exactly did you mean by “you” when you are citing ROCOR and when you used my name no fewer than three times in that post, making it clear you were talking to me? Had you really not meant to include me, your last post would have included an apology, not an evasion like “I don’t think I saw your name anywhere in there.”
3. You write: “Well Edward I am glad you know the heart of the Ecumenical Patriarch.”
Try to find anything in what I wrote that says or implies anything about Patriarch Bartholomew’s heart. When I criticize an institution like the EP for political actions, that is exactly what I criticize: actions. For all I know, he is an extraordinarily pious and even saintly man. Someone can have a good heart and engage in wrong actions, so criticizing actions does not imply a knowledge of the heart. This is Spiritual Life 101 (and Logic 101) and you should know that. By contrast, when you, Peter, label someone else’s traditionalism and piety as “fake” and label them as “poseurs,” you are most definitely claiming to know their heart.
4. You write: Further, I am surprised that you make ROCOR so weak minded that the big bad OC Greeks can manipulate and mentally alter the brains and motivations of ROCOR to make them extreme. Basically you are saying to me: “Peter, you are correct that ROCOR is extreme, but it was those darn OC Greeks that made us extreme.”
Where to start? I did not say or imply that the ROCOR is extreme, because I do not think it is, although there were some positions they took in the past — at least informally — that I did not agree with and felt were too extreme (i.e. some priests forbidding intercommunion by their faithful). I certainly did not say that OC Greeks “can manipulate and mentally alter the brains and motivations of the ROCOR…”
You know exactly what I said, because you yourself quoted it above: I wrote: “The truth is that there was a small but very vocal strain within the ROCOR that had been heavily influenced by Greek Old Calendarist thinking.” Rather different, isn’t it? And very true, I would add, and anyone who knows anything about the ROCOR would agree. I also said that everyone with that mindset about ecclesiology left the ROCOR after the reunification (indeed, if you embrace that ecclesiology, you would have no choice but to leave) and that it is estimated to have been, at most, 10% of the ROCOR clergy and faithful — pretty much what I meant by a “small but very vocal strain.”
5. You write: “In fact, Bishop Tikhon does the same thing you just did. He tell us about his Greek girlfriend ever time I catch his Hatred for Greeks showing.”
I cannot speak for His Grace, but I highly doubt that he has a “Hatred for Greeks” (love the capitalization, BTW — makes it seem more ominous). But for the sake of argument, let’s take your example at face value, and assume that you are correct that the only thing that His Grace has to show to defend against your accusation that he has a “Hatred for Greeks” is that he once had a Greek girlfriend. This is basically accusing him of being a version of the proverbial guy who says, “I had a black acquaintance/coworker once that I got along with, so I can’t be racist.”
Leaving aside the whole question of whether you have the ability to see into our hearts to determine that we have hatred (or in my case, you charitably say that I have only “veered” in the direction of hatred — whatever that means), how does that begin to compare to the story that I told you, only to have you ignore it and write it off and repeat your allegation of “hatred” on my part?
I talked about wonderful relationships with numerous Greek priests over the course of decades, a deep love for the particular genius of the modern Greek spiritual and theological tradition, years in a Greek parish with my family where we were deeply involved and forged close relationships and where I gladly entrusted my own precious children to the priest, the Greek school teachers and youth leaders to influence their spiritual development (heck, they were so fooled by how well I hid my “hatred” that they had me teach Sunday School to their own kids), a pointed and conscious decision to regularly attend Greek parishes even when I was a member of a ROCOR parish because I wanted to be connected with those people and that world, and rows with my ROCOR priests when they wouldn’t give their blessing to allow me to commune at Greek parishes.
Seriously, Peter, you read all of that, and you will still accuse me of being motivated by hatred of Greeks, and flippantly compare it to someone citing a Greek girlfriend in high school? You are incapable of allowing me an objective criticism of certain actions of the EP (or for that matter, my criticism of the ecclesiology of Greek Old Calendarists) on the merits, and must rather insist on accusing me of things that are rather vile?
Finally, I am not unaware of the things you cite about Christianity in Turkey. I have read many of them already, but I thank you for making sure that I had seen them. I have also read things that indicate that the vast majority of Turks becoming Christians are becoming Protestants, not Orthodox. My statement about the EP centers around the contrast between the huge task at hand in Turkey and the disproportionate emphasis that the EP instead places on trying to win ecclesiastical power struggles all over the globe instead (in the article that George wrote that kicked off this thread, he does a nice job of summarizing some of the problems with the EP including its “unsubtle hegemonic claims” — perhaps you should light into him for a change even though he isn’t in the ROCOR?)
My observation were statements of fact and clear-eyed observations. Criticisms, yes. But no hate involved, no matter how you want to try to twist it. In fact, it is you in this thread who have written about the “heresy of modernism” and gone on at length about Freemasonry in the EP’s history and all of that — I’ve not said anything that comes close to that.
Why can’t parishes continue with their local practices? The Latins have both modernist parishes and traditionalist parishes; so do we, and we would in a unified situation as well.
Any Greek bishop trying to stamp out Slavic rigor would be met with resistance and quickly find it futile. One would expect that an appreciation for diversity would be a prerequisite for bishops in our land.
I sure that many Catholics (Latins) would have loved to find “traditionalist” parishes. Even the least experimental parishes use the uninspiring, mundane, dumbed-down communion service – the Novus Ordo. The earlier English translations of the Tridentine Roman Rite preserved the sacredness of the eucharistic service.
Unity at the price of watering down Orthodoxy is unacceptable.
” A person who actually wants full, frontal Orthodoxy can go to a Russian or Serbian parish and practice what has been done from time immemorial.”
LOL. Not quite.
The Nikonian Reform wasn’t the only indication of that.
Visitors from the ancient patriarchates often commented on the Rus’ predisposition to extremism, which often went off the deep end (besides the Old Ritualists burning themselves instead of changing how they crossed themselves), to wit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skoptsy
“besides the Old Ritualists burning themselves instead of changing how they crossed themselves”
I think the Old Ritualists were burned by others, for the most part. And there were also textual changes, as you know. I have an old believer cross pendant that has a slightly different text for “Let God arise and His enemies be scattered!”, for example. Also, Met. Kallistos was frank in his book, The Orthodox Church, that the Old Believers were right about some things, things the Greeks had changed since Orthodoxy had been brought to Rus’.
But I was referring to standing for prayer (sans pews), head covering, the calendar, etc. Things that were ubiquitous. It’s nice thought that you’re going back through my stuff. I would think you would have more pressing concerns . . .
I agree with Jacob. It took me 3 years longer than it should have for me to come into the Church, because I was so conflicted about whether or not to be baptized. I had heard more than one person expressing regrets for not having had the opportunity, but no regrets from the people who did. Whether or not OTHER people did/didn’t wasn’t my concern, as we are all part of the Church, but I wanted those prayers said over my head and my jurisdiction wouldn’t allow it: Apparently, what was once a discretionary deviation had become the rule instead of the exception.
I was so conflicted, I attended services but didn’t come into the Church until my husband told me we would be moving out of state, which meant away from my parish. It was only then that I felt comfortable going to another jurisdiction to be baptized. As it turned out, we didn’t move, but I was grateful for the opportunity or I would probably still be on the outside looking in.
Converts shouldn’t have to struggle with these things. There are enough hurtles to overcome. There is no reason why the Assembly can’t make decisions about practices without making the administrative decisions they are so afraid of. It would put an end to all the inane discussions on the Internet about the calendars, for example, which is downright hostile at times.
We can survive having multiple bishops, but not the kind of poison that comes from divisiveness on things as fundamental as how one should be received into the Church. Seriously. It’s really inexcusable.
Gail, your post is most interesting to me. In my case, if I would have to have been ‘rebaptized’, I am pretty sure I would never have come in.
The wonderful experience of Chrismation was enough for me, if I can put it that way…..
The decision, itself, is really not the point. I’m sure I would have felt less conflicted had ALL the jurisdictions believed that Chrismation was the appropriate step. They do not and THAT is my point. By happenstance (or by design, it’s a mystery) I was introduced to the Church through an OCA parish in CO, made a catechumin by Fr. Paisios at St. Anthony’s and attended a Antiochian parish where I lived. Each was/is similarly vested in my spiritual path and they did not/do not agree on how one should be received. One feels one way, another feels a different way and the third maintains that either way is fine. The point is, I should not have been placed in a position where I had to decide. It was enough for me to decide to come into the Church.
Jacob, I’ll tell you a story. When I was newly chrismated, I used to grumble about the “old timers” who insisted on the use of Church Slavonic. I felt they were trying to turn my cathedral into a Russian Emigre sanctuary. An old woman noticed my long face and told me, “Never mind, wait a bit and they’ll all be dead.” She died about a month later, and I felt awful. I have noticed that a great deal of old timers have passed away and the cathedral is not as full as it used to be. Be that as it may, since the Orthodox Church offers a wonder spiritual treasure for its members, new converts are stumped by the various languages used in the liturgy. They have a choice of either going over the text of the services as if they were Wagnerian operas and so learning the language by rote or spending a few years actually learning it. This would greatly impede the flow of “new blood” into the church. The beauty is still there, but Orthodoxy must be in the language of the people and in the case of the United States, in English, as St. Patriarch Tikhon originally intended.
Exactly my point. I’d probably be in ROCOR if it weren’t for the pervasive use of Slavonic and the Old Calendar nonsense.
And if it weren’t for the modernistic services with the prayers read aloud, the see-through Iconastases, so that the laity won’t feel “left out”,and the kowtowing to gay agenda,I’D be in the OCA.
“Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”
I am sure the OCA is very upset about the loss of you. I am with you on the gay agenda, it IS horrible. However, “see through iconostases” are normative throughout Orthodoxy. Some of the grandest iconostases are in traditional Orthodox lands, and you can see right through to the altar. Not many in Russia though. Maybe you should just move to Russia. Have you actually read the studies such as the finding of the Church of Greece on the mystical prayers? It is not so that the laity don’t feel “left out.” It is because they belong “in” in the first place.
Father, you don’t know me. With all due respect to your priesthood, what right do have to suggest that “maybe I should move to Russia”? I don’t plan on ever even visiting Russia until General Vlasov is pardoned. Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, Estonia, yes; Russia no.
I guess I should have been more specific. When I meant “see through”, I meant those churches where the iconostasis is really just Icons mounted on poles. This is just one man’s opinion. If the laity want to hear reading, let them come to Matins and hear the Psalms and Canons, as well as the Gospel. Too long for both Matins and Liturgy? But people will sit in bleachers for over three hours in freezing weather to see a football game. I’m not talking about the Old Believer concept that one must do all the hours without abbreviation between Matins and Liturgy. The Greek parish practice of going right into Liturgy after the Great Doxology at Matins works fine.
I hear the pyroshkis are to die for. 😉
While I’m sure that there are issues to be considered in Chicago’s church life, I’m just as sure that they’re not unique to Chicago. I’d even hazard a guess that whatever would result in jurisdictional unity’s being a ‘disaster’ there would have nothing to do with canonical order or proper ecclesiology — more likely congregationalism and anticlericalism, petty squabbling over pride of place, fears over financial disclosures , and exposure of immorality/personal ambition among the clergy high and low. These are not pastoral concerns, but priorities adopted under the basest of motives and unworthy of Christians.
Whatever might happen in Chicago with the advent of administrative unity among us Orthodox can’t be a ‘disaster’. On the contrary, it could be only a blessing there as it would be anywhere else. The question is, though, who are the administration? It’s patently clear that it cannot be any group which is supervised from abroad.
We already have models of administrative unity which we can reliably invoke and imitate. In Greece, there are parishes which use liturgical languages other than Greek, but they are under the authority of the local bishop. The same is true in Russia and pretty much everywhere else in the orthodox world. The one (somewhat humorous) and rather notable exception are the parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia inside of Russia, but that has an obvious and quickly impending expiration date.
There is no reason why the/an ‘Orthodox Church in America — however reconstituted on the ground, by the laity if necessary — can’t be the united administration we all hope for. Languages, liturgical customs, menus may vary, but all orthodox communities in a specific and well defined geographical area must come under the authority of a single bishop who belongs to a single national (variously defined) synod with all the other legitimate local bishops — no exceptions..
As I say: This is already the norm (meaning NORMAL structure) in Europe within the territories of the older ‘mother’ churches; why can’t they see that this must also be the norm in North America and elsewhere?
‘It is time for the Lord to act.’
By way of enlightening us on the situation in Chicago, Father James speaks of “fears over financial disclosures, and exposure of immorality/personal ambition among the clergy high and low.”
He then reassures us, “These are not pastoral concerns.”
I may try to comment on that assessment, after a prolonged fast and pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
But we cannot allow pastoral concerns to overrule good order and the evangelical value of unity, surely. I mean, letting such nonsense pastoral concerns rule the day is why the Latins are on the verge of a disastrous synod on marriage and family issues, led by heretical European bishops. “But it’s pastoral” can be the justification for every kind of wrong.
Mr. Manning is right that no administrative issue can keep us from our own work of salvation. But it certainly hampers our witness to the world.
How much time and money are wasted with a dozen parallel administrative structures? How much evangelism can we do when we shamefully boast that we are “the best kept secret”? Keeping Orthodoxy a secret is a finger to the Great Commission!
In a unified North America, some of us will have to submit to a bad bishop. This is nothing new in the Church’s history. The bishops submit to a synod and we all submit to Christ, so what is the fear? We should trust in God.
Of course, you are right in the abstract. A few thousand Orthodox laymen suffering under a less-than-ideal bishop, or even an outright bad bishop, is not the end of the world. We could overcome that without too much discomfort.
This is not what people fear. The problem is being caught in a Mobius loop in which 7-8 questionable GOA-selected metropolitans chosen via a very self-selected (and self-perpetuating) election process are permanently on top of any putative united American heap.
Of such things are uniate dreams made of.
In that kind of a structure, I would agree.
Presumably a properly unified North America would be split into dioceses enough, 50 or 60, for all the existing bishops to take one, and as there would be no more Greek Archdiocese, there would not be an issue of some bishops lording over other ones based on their former affiliation.
But that is just a dream and will probably stay a dream. In practical terms you’re right. The issue is that we don’t have bishops willing to give up what they have for the greater good. I suppose that will be theirs to answer for.
This is bleak, but the Greek Archdiocese is dying. In a couple of generations maybe they won’t have the power to try these kinds of power plays anymore.
GOAA is no where near dying. Sorry to disappoint. The Ephraimite monasteries will make sure the GOAA stays alive and faithful.
Thank God for the monasteries founded by Geronda Ephraim.
And please sir…..do not use the term “Ephraimite.” The monastics who reside at these monasteries see this term as derogatory.
I was never informed that the term was offensive. However, because of my deep love and respect for Elder Ephraim and his Monasteries, especially the one Male Monastery here in Illinois and the Female Monastery in Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, I will discontinue the term.
Thank you for letting me know.
I also agree – Thank God for the monasteries founded by Geronda Ephraim. If it wasn’t for those monasteries the GOAA would be dying if not dead already.
Here are their links: http://www.stchrysostomoscrafts.com/
http://holytransfigurationmonastery.com/
Peter
Amen.
Ages says, “Presumably a properly unified North America would be split into dioceses enough, 50 or 60, for all the existing bishops to take one”
And who would get Chicago?
Many of us in Chicago have the same well-founded fear.
I highly suggest that the Archons read the following and strongly reconsider their decision to give the Human Rights Award to VP Biden:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/2-catholic-bishops-biden-not-allowed-speak-catholic-schools-must-not
Peter
Oh, NO!!!
George did it again, starting and ending a sentence with the same preposition.
EVERYONE, every writer, needs an editor.
Elsewise, even our best yet clumsily presented ideas sometimes get bogged down in our readership’s attempts to understand our intended meanings.
As a really painful example of the problem, here is yesterday’s Apostle from oca.org:
QUOTE
Ephesians 2:19-3:7 (Epistle)
19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. 1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles – 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, 7 of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power.
END QUOTE
It’s almost certain that the people who read this section yesterday — even publicly — readers and listeners alike, never realized that they understood nothing but fragments of meaning and no complete thought. Myself, I don’t translate like this.
Anyway, I adduce this as an ‘object’ lesson — pun fully intended. And we thought that periodic sentences in German were challenging….
Well, George, as a wise priest once told me, “The Church, like a river, has a way of purifying itself.” I pray this to be true, especially in difficult times.
Ages declares, “In a unified North America, some of us will have to submit to a bad bishop. This is nothing new in the Church’s history. The bishops submit to a synod and we all submit to Christ, so what is the fear?”
Under a bad bishop, buddy, we have everything to fear.
Anyone ignorant of that prospect has no business in this discussion.
Is that because of a certain bishop likely to be named bishop of Chicago in a united Church?
umm Nick, the Greek and Russian used in the liturgy are not modern spoken Greek or Russian. The little yia yia or babushka can no more understand Byzantine Greek or Slavonic than a Spanish speaker can understand the Latin of a Roman Catholic Mass.
So, not good examples, sorry.
I think Nick’s point was that the yiayia or babushka or tata who can’t speak English needs to be able to speak to her bishop in her native tongue when he visits, not that the Liturgy should be in the ancient version of whatever tongue she now speaks.
Whether that is actually a necessity or not is another question. I say it’s not, although it’s definitely a nicety. The important thing, I think, is that the Bishop be a true diocesan, geographical bishop, and that — most important of all — he make himself available to the grandmas (and everyone else!) in the first place, even if only through a translator.
You can’t speak to someone who isn’t there, no matter what language you’re using.
I think Nick’s point was that the yiayia or babushka or tata who can’t speak English needs to be able to speak to her bishop in her native tongue when he visits…
Does she?
I think he meant the pastoral issues; confession and the like.
I think George had more than liturgical language in mind here.
Some years ago, in a meeting of the local clergy here in Chicago, I was commenting on the recent growth of our Antiochian parish.
A very devout and well-educated Serbian priest, in all seriousness, asked, “Are you really getting that many refugees from the Middle East?”
No, I answered, we are not getting any refugees from the Middle East. Our growth has nothing to do with the Old Country.
That is to say, he and I were both speaking English, but our presuppositions came from different continents.
I think this is what George has in mind, when he speaks of the different languages spoken among Orthodox Christians in America.
umm Nick, the Greek and Russian used in the liturgy are not modern spoken Greek or Russian. The little yia yia or babushka can no more understand Byzantine Greek or Slavonic than a Spanish speaker can understand the Latin of a Roman Catholic Mass.
I don’t speak Spanish fluently or Latin at all so I can’t comment on your analogy per se but it is completely false that Greek yiayias lack comprehension of the services.
Also, Russian speakers get the gist of Slavonic. I can’t speak for those who speak other Slavic languages though. It’s not word for word comprehension, and the grammar is different, more like how modern English speakers appreciate Shakespeare.
Yes, this is true. And since everyone has the same misunderstanding of these languages, our clergy should be saying the clergy in a language they DO understand: English. Once a Russian icon-restorer visited our parish. He was kind enough to show me photographs of his work–beautiful icon restoration! He could make cracked paint smooth as glass and remove the smoky finish from the egg yolk varnish. The icon was visible, and a benefit to all who saw it yet it had the original purpose for which it was made. So remove the things that obscure the icon or the liturgy so that the faithful and potential converts can understand it and benefit by it.
From the bottom of my heart…..thank Metropolitan Joseph!
As a Priest in the Antiochian Archdiocese my thoughts after reading the letter were “They need us now…” Given the current struggle and suffering being endured by those faithful in the Mother Church I can see why it would not be wise to proceed with a project that could possibly lessen our relationship as an Archdiocese with our Patriarchate. We need to speak and act on their behalf, be willing to take refugees if needed, and provide any kind of support they would need to endure. What kind of unity would it be if it meant that our roots would be left to wither in these days? Some day, when our brothers and sisters in the Mother Church are again free from imminent peril these things related to unity can proceed. Until then we need to stay close to them through whatever’s happening and what may still come.
Many ancient churches, such as those mentioned in Revelation, and Carthage and Hippo and others in northern Africa and the Middle East are gone — their people converted, exiled, or killed by muslim fanatics over a thousand years ago and even since. Consider Turkey and its 20th-century persecutions and ethnic cleansings.
Since no one, no nation and its army, is doing anything serious about stopping our contemporary muslim assaults, whether against Buddhists or Christians or even their fellow Muslims who disagree with them, it seems reasonable to think now that — like Antioch the Great before it — christian Damascus will not survive the current onslaught any better than did Mosul in Iraq just this year.
All things being equal, the Patriarchate of Antioch (which lives elsewhere yet is still submerged in Islam — what did that move accomplish? ) is very likely to go extinct soon, just like the churches mentioned in Revelation.
We must grow stronger here in North America as a unified church so as to be able to receive and protect our fellow believers who have had to flee muslim persecution. We can’t do this as an outpost of an extinct patriarchate.
We probably need an american patriarchate by now.
We must be who we are, where we are, when we are, and ‘bear each other’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ’.
We need a patriarch, but not necessarily an American patriarch.
We need unity, but not necessarily jurisdictional unity.
We need spiritual unity — shared faith, shared values, shared vision. No spiritual unity, no trust. No trust, no jurisdictional unity.
Some of us have changed jurisdictions because we no longer shared the faith, values, or vision of our former jurisdictions. We have found greater unity elsewhere, under hierarchs less desperate, less needy, more faithful, and therefore better able to lead the Church in troubled times, though they be far away and not of our own earthly tribe.
Father James speculates, “We probably need an american patriarchate by now.”
Oh, may a merciful God spare us all!
Father Pat, I was introduced to Orthodoxy 6 years ago and have read many books and listened to hundreds of hours of AFR podcasts since then, and have appreciated your ministry in the process. I have been a regular visitor of an OCA church during that time and consider myself a “former protestant” but haven’t yet entered the Church for familial reasons. My prayer has been that we would see Orthodox unity in America sometime soon. Apparently, that is a very naïve wish. This saddens me greatly. You say “God spare us” from an American patriarchate. If there is ever to be a united Orthodox church in America, what else would it be? I ask this with all respect because I’m lost in the weeds of all this discussion. Thank you!
Well James, here it is in a nutshell,
Pretty much every church centered in the Wild, Wild West has succumbed to heterodoxy or apostasy within the last few generations. This would include the Protestant mainline churches, the Roman Catholic Church and (though the jury is still out) the GOAA (centered, as a practical matter, on 79th street) and the OCA (Syosset). You don’t have to believe me. Take a look at George’s poll or look in the news.
Those churches centered in the bad old East – the ROC, the Serbian OC, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc. – have not succumbed to modernism or, if they have done so to some extent – Antioch, for instance – it is only partially and with strong reservations since Damascus, their center, is smack in the middle of (conservative) Islam and thus the greater Arab culture militates against such “progress”.
So, you can assume that an independent American Orthodox Church, because it would be centered in a sea of Western cultural acid inimical to the Orthodox ethos, would not be a positive development.
There, somebody had to say it.
Misha (September 24, 2015 at 2:05 pm) says:
SNIP
Pretty much every church centered in the Wild, Wild West has succumbed to heterodoxy or apostasy within the last few generations. This would include the Protestant mainline churches, the Roman Catholic Church and (though the jury is still out) the GOAA (centered, as a practical matter, on 79th street) and the OCA (Syosset).
SNIP
There, somebody had to say it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Without speaking to every situation mentioned here and wearing through everyone’s patience, I’d like to say only that I take vigorous exception to the notion that my own OCA ‘has succumbed to heterodoxy or apostasy’.
I’d would be fair play for ‘Misha’ to identify some areas of the OCA’s ‘heterodoxy or apostasy’, just so that we can know just what he means in specific terms. No need to go into lengthy disquisitions — it would be sufficient for him merely to name the events or practices which qualify for being described so gravely.
At the same time, I would caution ‘Misha’ (and everyone else) that immoral bishops, poor administrative structures, ascetic and liturgical practices — including the solar calendar — are not grist for the mills of ‘ heterodoxy or apostasy’. These are problem areas for the OCA (among other orthodox churches in America and elsewhere), but they certainly do not constitute ‘heterodoxy or apostasy’.
And I regret to inform ‘Misha’ that he is mistaken in his last statement: Nobody had to say anything like the oddities he wrote of here. NOBODY.
Here’s what I wrote:
”Pretty much every church centered in the Wild, Wild West has succumbed to heterodoxy or apostasy within the last few generations. This would include the Protestant mainline churches, the Roman Catholic Church and (though the jury is still out) the GOAA (centered, as a practical matter, on 79th street) and the OCA (Syosset).”
The GOAA and the OCA, at least in certain regions, have essentially made peace with the normalization of homosexuality in the culture and the prevalence of feminism and abortion. It’s sort of a, “Well, we can change the official rules but . . .” type thing. See Fr. Arida’s essay, Bishop Savvas’ comments about abortion and poverty, Pat. Bartholomew’s comments about the Church being “generally” pro-life, etc.
Sad but true.
Misha September 25, 2015 at 11:20 am) says:
Here’s what I wrote:
”Pretty much every church centered in the Wild, Wild West has succumbed to heterodoxy or apostasy within the last few generations. This would include the Protestant mainline churches, the Roman Catholic Church and (though the jury is still out) the GOAA (centered, as a practical matter, on 79th street) and the OCA (Syosset).”
The GOAA and the OCA, at least in certain regions, have essentially made peace with the normalization of homosexuality in the culture and the prevalence of feminism and abortion. It’s sort of a, “Well, we can change the official rules but . . .” type thing. See Fr. Arida’s essay, Bishop Savvas’ comments about abortion and poverty, Pat. Bartholomew’s comments about the Church being “generally” pro-life, etc.
Sad but true.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is NOTRUE that any of this signifies ‘heterodoxy or apostasy’ on the part of the OCA, which was the burden of my question about the assertion made by ‘Misha’.
Let’s please remember what I wrote earlier:
BQ
At the same time, I would caution ‘Misha’ (and everyone else) that immoral bishops, poor administrative structures, ascetic and liturgical practices — including the solar calendar — are not grist for the mills of ‘ heterodoxy or apostasy’. These are problem areas for the OCA (among other orthodox churches in America and elsewhere), but they certainly do not constitute ‘heterodoxy or apostasy’.
EQ
It cannot be denied that some OCA clergymen are suggesting and even teaching immoral ways of addressing contemporary issues, and that some OCA bishops are embarrassingly lax in correcting themselves as well as those men or disciplining them, if necessary. But that does not mean that the entire OCA is guilty of ‘ heterodoxy or apostasy’ — merely that there are sinners in the OCA just as there are all through the orthodox churches.
How much more clearly can I express this distinction?
Perhaps ‘Misha’ can provide real examples of the ‘ heterodoxy or apostasy’ of the OCA as a whole, or maybe back off such an outrageous claim if he cannot adduce any such examples.
The OCA and GOARCH have for some time flirted with heterodoxy. Even the late Fr. Thomas Hopko approved of civil recognition of same sex unions. Also, just for the heck of it, you might want to take a look at the Athonite monks’ criticism of Pat. Bartholomew’s reception of a Pope with the honors reserved for an Orthodox bishop. They give quite a laundry list of offenses.
I think you are just a bit sheltered. I’m sure they do not trumpet this stuff at the average OCA parish
I gave you examples of the tendencies in both jurisdictions and all I ever asserted was that the jury was out on whether they would leave the faith. I demonstrated my point though you may fail to comprehend it and I would rather focus on something constructive.
Fr. Thomas Hopko did not flirt with heterodoxy by his “approval” of same-sex unions. Your implication that his comments were within a context of “marriage” is at once manipulative as it is deceptive. Fr. Thomas’ comments were concerned with the welfare of children, and in specific, a situation I had brought to his attention of a christian minister who was horribly abusive of his wife and seven children. His wife chose to leave him for a same-sex relationship and took the children with her. The minister, in defiance of a court order of protection, found her, beat her nearly to death, and assaulted nearly half the children. He was released on bail (something that would never happen now in Westchester County, NY) and ordered to pay child support and provided health insurance. He immediately absconded.
This was at a time when only the largest corporations provided benefits for domestic partners. Fr. Tom’s comments were strictly limited to parity of rights pertaining to the welfare & protection of children, and were never intended to speak to issue of Christian Marriage, same-sex unions being as “alternatives,” parallels, or substitutions for Christian Marriage. You need to tune your trumpet.
Stankovich,
He supported same sex unions using the language of the gay rights lobby. Spin it any way you want. It was evil and heterodox.
See: Thomas Hopko on Same-Sex Attraction: Speaking the Truth in Love?
He repeatedly speaks of the rights of the couples “and their children” so you are not being truthful when you say that he was only concerned for the children. This is not true. Also:
“It is also important because those in same-sex relationships, whether or not they are sexually active, almost always understand a denial of such public recognition and protection as an expression of hatred and contempt toward themselves and their families.”
But this is a depressing subject, the fall of American Orthodoxy. I’d rather leave it to others to beat this dead horse.
I’d like to reply as well. Regarding Hopko’s opinion that this abused housewife needed the economic benefits of a civil union specifically: if lesbianism is not a sin, then why couldn’t she have engaged in prostitution in order to provide for her family? Or act in pornographic films? (I’m only being half facetious here. Are these sinful things? If so, why?)
Anyway, she could have gotten on Welfare to get health insurance, why get entangled in a lesbian union (which incidentally are just as abusive than heterosexual unions)?
Ultimately, this case to Dr S brings up is a perfect example of the old cliche that “hard cases make bad law.”
Misha (September 26, 2015 at 12:35 pm) says (among other things, and somewhat disrespectfully):
SNIP
I gave you examples of the tendencies in both jurisdictions and all I ever asserted was that the jury was out on whether they would leave the faith. I demonstrated my point though you may fail to comprehend it and I would rather focus on something constructive.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is not true. Please, readers, consider what I wrote earlier:
Perhaps ‘Misha’ can provide real examples of the ‘ heterodoxy or apostasy’ of the OCA as a whole, or maybe back off such an outrageous claim if he cannot adduce any such examples
Yet ‘Misha’ has given us no such examples of the total ‘ heterodoxy or apostasy’ of the OCA.
His demurring here is fatuous and disingenuous. He must adduce examples of the OCA’s church-wide ‘ heterodoxy or apostasy’ with which he charges us, or withdraw that lie.
This is one more example of the problems which arise when our correspondents write anonymously. I hope that this practice will stop, and that people who write to us here will own their words honestly.
There is some something to be said for having been present for the events as they transpired in real time, and by this I mean such is the nature of pastoral decisions. You may well quote the sandbagging “authority” of dn. Mitchell, who I can testify was not present, and of course Misha, I know damn well you were not there but, as ever, are satisfied with 3rd and 4th party reports as if contemporaneous.. Mr. Michalopulos, I have presented this situation several times on this site, and I am ashamed of your “half-joking” suggestion” that prostitution or pornographic acting as an alternative to “lesbianism.” Secondly, you would presume it is a “given” that one may simply walk into the “welfare office” to procure Medicaid – as if I am an idiot when it comes to such matters of governmental entitlements.
I repeat myself as an active participant in this situation – while you quote me the bumbling authority of the poseur dn. Mitchell, who lacked the courage to address Fr. Thomas for clarification of his comment – pursuant to the Patristic Tradition – and whom I believe feared being put in his place; I asked dn. Mitchell numerous times – even offering to “broker” a discussion with Fr. Thomas which he ignored. As pastor, acting in the person of the Master, Fr. Thomas made a decision which I believe anyone with a heart and who had read Matt. 25 acted as the Lord healing on the Sabbath (Jn 5:2-15, Mk. 3:1-6). He made no “law,” spoke to no theology to impose on the Church, and focused on the protection of of children & unprotected families. When the need for such protect resolved, so did his opinion. What is a shame is that simple cowardice prevented clarification of his position, leaving one man’s aspersion somehow cast as the truth. And Misha, you are that dead horse.
Monk James,
Shouldn’t you be praying or something? While you are at it, you might ask for the Lord to grant you understanding of the phrase “the jury is still out”. I told no lies, only the truth, and stand by every single word I wrote. We can go back and forth until we’re both gone or Christ returns and I won’t recant any of it.
It is clear that there is a cabal in the OCA that wants to normalize homosexual relationships. We have had that discussion many times here. One does not get to the point where one accepts homosexual relationships without denying the authority of scripture and traditon.
Furthermore, the following letter from Athos amounts to an accusation of heterodoxy against Pat. Bartholomew without being so explicit as to arouse his famous wrath:
Letter of the Holy Community of Mt. Athos to Oecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew
Furthermore, this little work of Met. Elpidophoros expresses a theory of primacy foreign to Orthodoxy, familiar to Rome, and, if the Phanar were to insist on it as Orthodox doctrine, would constitute heresy.
First without equals: A response to the text on primacy of the Moscow Patriarchate. By His Eminence Elpidophoros Lambriniadis, Metropolitan of Bursa
However, heterodoxy is in the eye of the beholder unless some competent bishop or synod calls it by its right name. No one is going to say that Fr. Thomas Hopko or Fr. Robert Arida lapsed into heterodoxy. That Fr. Thomas did and Fr. Arida does advocate unorthodox attitudes toward homosexuality should not be a controversial statement. The jury is still out.
As far as anonymity is concerned, it is a red herring if ever there were one. If you knew everything about me it would not change any of the facts described here.
You and Stankovich: If I say, 2+2 = 4, do you need to see the letters after my name to know that it’s true? If I say 2+2=5, would the letters after my name persuade you of the verity of the statement?
Silly.
Michael Stankovich, what in the world are you talking about? When did you offer to “broker a discussion” between Hopko and me? All I recall is you repeatedly misusing the term sandbagging to argue that I owed Hopko a call before criticizing his public teaching.
Well I would suggest, like Mischa did previously to me because ignorance does not become him either, to read the introduction to the Athonite letter accusing the EP of heresy. In fact let me show it to all of you:
The following is a very important and encouraging letter from the Holy Community of Mt. Athos. It bluntly and very effectively exposes the ecclesiological deviations of Patriarch Bartholomew, with regard to the ecumenical movement. However, it must be read with certain reservations, which even more strikingly call every sober Orthodox Christian to see how fundamentally the ecumenical movement and its religious relativism have compromised the Faith and blinded even monastic circles to its soul-destroying ills:
1) Where have the Fathers of the Holy Mountain been for the last two decades, as ecumenical outrage after ecumenical outrage wounded and scarred the consciences of the Orthodox Faithful? While one can only feel relief that they have now spoken so resolutely, it is undeniable that they are speaking, not when the water has been stirred by wrong belief, but after it has been polluted by poisonous additives. They have come at the eleventh hour to warn us, as though of smoke, about a conflagration which many of us saw raging from the first hour.
2) The Holy Community states that it wishes to believe that the Œcumenical Patriarch did not write the addresses to which it refers. We would ask: is it the provenance or the magnitude of heresy which should more greatly concern us? Obviously it is the latter. And from that standpoint, one cannot deny that the few statements cited by the Holy Community are but a mere aperitif in the many courses that have been offered up in the banquet of ecumenism. And one of the main servers at this banquet has been Œcumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, from the very first of his service, when, as the Athonite Abbots stood passively by, he was enthroned in the presence of ecumenical representatives from various heterodox confessions at the Phanar.
3) In their letter, the Fathers of the Holy Community write about the issue of Patriarch Bartholomew’s ecumenical excesses the following: “The matter takes on tragic proportions, however, when we see the most pious of Orthodox faithful deserting for schismatic groups and in this way cause the holy body of the Church to bleed.” This statement invites comment.
a) Since when is resistance “schism”? It is only recently that we have seen the Greek Old Calendarists (who were first served, in the early ’20s, as we all know, by Athonite Hieromonks), the Romanian Old Calendarists, the Bulgarian Old Calendarists, and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad characterized by some Athonite voices as “schismatics.” (HEY EDWARD AND MISCHA SOME OF THE MONKS OF ATHOS SAID THAT ROCOR WAS SCHISMATIC! SORRY BUT ATHOS HAS SPOKEN!) A few decades ago, they were “True Orthodox” and “heroes.” Indeed, it is only as ecumenism has grown and affected, without their knowing it, even the mentality of the more sober Orthodox, that Athonite Abbots have stood with heterodox clergy in the Phanar, before a Patriarch who calls the heresy of Papism a “Sister Church,” and dismissed their brothers in resistance as schismatics. (YOU MEAN THE GREAT ATHONITE MONKS WOULD DO SUCH A THING? WOW!).
b) If the “most pious” of the Orthodox are drawn into resistance, leading one to believe that the less pious are left within the so-called “official” Church, does this not lead a prudent man to wonder just who it is who is courting schism? Are the pious actually schismatics for separating from error, while those in error are not in schism by virtue of their complacent deviation from the teachings of Orthodoxy? Here again, ecumenical thinking has taken an unnoticed toll.
c) And if the Fathers of the Holy Mountain find once more that their words have fallen on the deaf ears of Constantinople, as have our own words for two decades, what course, then, will be open to them, except resistance? And will they call this schism?
At any rate, this document is an important one which should inspire those of us in the resistance, if read properly and with the reservations which I have enumerated.
Finally, the translated text of this letter is not ours. While it seems quite adequate, in places it is awkward and imprecise.
Your Humble Servant,
+ Bishop Auxentios
Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies
________________________________
You see I actually agree with this statement of Bishop Auxentios: “Where have the Fathers of the Holy Mountain been for the last two decades, as ecumenical outrage after ecumenical outrage wounded and scarred the consciences of the Orthodox Faithful?” As he states they should have been there from the very beginning before the water was polluted.
the OC Greeks needed to be there, ROCOR needed to be there and all the other so-called traditionalists needed to be there, BUT WERE NOT! That’s why they are or were schismatics. Resistance from the outside is worthless. resistance from within, as Elder Ephraim has shown, works and changes the laity’s heart and mind and turns us back to Orthodoxy. Cutting and Running does not. Now don’t get me wrong Elder Ephraim “came back” to the canonical church because he too was outside at one time and resided with ROCOR.
He realized he could contribute and make change from within the canonical Church and not leave like others had done and just abandon his people to sin and error. I thank God for Elder Ephraim. We should all learn from his example of what true obedience and self-sacrifice for the sake of people’s souls really is.
Peter
Well, short of administering the Mini Mental Status Exam, dn. Mitchell, perhaps a recollection of your discussion with me and Fr. Fr. Hans might assist your recollection:
in response,
Misha–You are trying to weasel out from your reckless accusations. You turn out to be a schismatic, lying and anonymous troll after all. I urge our esteemed host to take due diligence with such persons, lest his good name is besmirched.
Guys, it’s this way:
I appreciate that the ROCOR and traditionalists in general irk you. You are entitled to your opinions. You are also entitled to your opinions about canonicity. You can believe that Rome is “canonical” for all I care.
The Russian Church is once again one. When it was reunited, both the MP and ROCOR understood it, in writing and in private, to be the reunion of the two parts of the “Church of Russia”. You can look at the Act of Canonical Unity or the press releases at the time if you doubt me.
Now, does it really matter what the Phanar thinks anymore? The OCA? To whom, precisely?
A sort of polite indifference.
Michael Stankovich, you wrote:
Prove that this is true. Show me where you did this. I don’t see it anywhere in your angry regurgitation of senseless bile.
Misha,
In a nutshell, Misha, I’m sorry you feel that way. I appreciate that you have a great love of the way things are done in “oldie country” but I’m afraid your allegations about American Orthodoxy have no basis in fact. Citing George’s “gay marriage” poll, which was filled out by the sorts of uncouth internet trolls who would actually weigh in on trash like that and has no connection to reality, get you nowhere in your assertion that the Greeks and OCA have “succumbed to heterodoxy.” You strike me as the sort of person who thinks it is more important whether a church has pews than whether they are spreading the gospel.
You mention the Jerusalem Patriarchate, for example, which is probably the most corrupt and flatly racist Christian institution in the last 100 years.
When His Excellency Bishop Atalla Hanna (Sebastia Theodosios) came to my parish to speak to us about the human rights violations perpetrated upon himself and the rest of Arab and Palestinian Christians (their fellow Orthodox!!!) within their territory, the congregation was nearly moved to tears.
Stop repeating all this nonsense about how Orthodox in the West are all compromised. If I didn’t know any better (and I don’t), I’d think you were purposefully spreading lies in order to convince people not to “Come and See.”
Jacob,
Not at all. Take, for example, the Patriarch Athenagoras Orthodox Institute study of Orthodox opinion in GOAA and the OCA. – http://www.orthodoxinstitute.org/orthodoxchurchtoday.html
Start on page 109 and scroll through the recommendations that “many” in the focus groups “frequently” suggested:
Change the calendar, allow intercommunion with non-Orthodox, allow non-Orthodox to be godparents, allow marriages between Orthodox and non-Christians, have lay ministers like in the Roman Catholic church and broaden worship to be more “casual” with instruments.
No need to make anything up. It’s right there in black and white from an Orthodox source.
Nonetheless, lets get off of the jurisdictional rivalry for awhile. Any Orthodox church is better than no Orthodox church.
God works in mysterious ways behind all of these developments, making lemons into lemonade.
Let’s look at the study that “misha” says indicates that the OCA and the GOA have probably “succumbed to heterodoxy or apostasy.”
First of all, “”The Orthodox Church Today” is the first national survey based study of the laity, ordinary church members, in the two largest Orthodox Churches in the United States: the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA) and the Orthodox Church in America (OCA).”
Does Misha think that the laity is the supreme authority in the Orthodox Church? If not, how in the world can a survey of the laity indicate that their respective jurisdictions are sliding intro heresy, heterodoxy or apostasy?
Does the learned “misha” agree with the author’s assertion that “to a certain extent the outcomes of the ‘Orthodox Church Today’ study reflect the ‘profile’ of the American Orthodox community at large” ? I would imagine that he would not agree because he clearly thinks himself to be a guardian of orthodox praxis and beliefs.
Secondly, when asked the question”When you think about your theological position and
approach to church life, which word best describes where you stand?,” only 4% of the respondents chose “Liberal. I am willing to initiate and promote new developments in
Church.” The vast majority (69%) chose either conservative (28%) or traditional (41%). So much for the laity of the GOA and the OCA becoming apostate or heterodox.
Even a cursory analysis of the study shows that “misha” is at best wrong. I do wonder however exactly which jurisdiction he belongs to because that could give us a clue to his motivation in making slanderous statements.
If you read the part of the study to which I referred above, you would know that I slandered no one. Self description as conservative is meaningless in a country where conservative evangelicals practice intercommunion with other confessions. At worst, I’m right. At best, perish the thought, the clergy are worse than the laity.
I don’t think you read very well. I always qualified my statements in that I believe that the jury is still out on the OCA and GOARCH and that, for the most part, the clergy’s attitude is sort of a wink and nod, “Well, we can’t change church teaching, at least not officially, but . . .”
That is precisely what has been happening. You don’t have to like it.
Now, given that there is no possible way I will consider backing down from stating the truth of the matter, can we move on? We can go back and forth like this til the cows come home.
Misha–I don’t think that “moving on” is a wise thing. For one thing, I cannot let go of your slick maneuvering and I cannot rest until you apologize for slandering both the GOA and the OCA.
First, you dismiss the survey categories by saying “Self description as conservative is meaningless in a country where conservative evangelicals practice intercommunion with other confessions.” Apparently you glossed over a very inconvenient fact: the survey did not ask respondents to classify themselves simply as “conservative,” “traditional,” etc..The survey defined those terms:
When you think about your theological position and approach to church life, which
word best describes where you stand?
1. I am Conservative. Orthodox Church should avoid changes in its life and theology.
2. I am Traditional. Any changes in the Church should be evolutionary.
3. I am Moderate. I accept new developments and changes in Church depending on local circumstances.
4. I am Liberal. I am willing to initiate and promote new developments in Church.
I chose “conservative” because the operative word for me was “avoid” changes. I felt that the author should have included another choice, “reactionary,” for there are some Orthodox who reject any changes even though the changes are based on good reasons, such as to get rid of Western Latin and Lutheran influences or to reintroduce Apostolic practices. None of which, by the way, have anything to do with the evangelicals–conservative or not. I suppose now that you have been informed of the definitions and the way that conservative Orthodox look at change, you could allow that the vast majority of the respondents (69%) are not modernists, gay lovers, pew lovers, etc… BTW, let us just suppose that churches in the USA start getting rid of their pews; would such an action be described as an evolutionary change (read “traditional”) or change due to local circumstances (read “moderate”) ?
Now let us move on to how you so slickly dismissed the issue of whether the laity or the bishops are the definitive authority in our Church. The only reason you put on the table is another blanket condemnation, as if you are doubling down: “At best, perish the thought, the clergy are worse than the laity.” Bill Clinton would be proud of you!
Now lets move onto the responders views that start in page 109. You are claiming that they indicate that the laity of the GOA and the OCA are sliding into apostasy and heresy.
1). The issue of the Orthodox Church calendar. Many focus group participants expressed an opinion that the Orthodox Church calendar must be adjusted to calendar which is used in society at large. (Misha–Do you think that those on the Revised Julian are apostates and heretics? My reason for favoring the Revised Julian is that it fits better with the decision of the First Ecumenical Council. Besides, the Julian calendar is simply wrong and clinging to it is stupid.)
2) The problem of the so-called inter-communion. The Orthodox Church has a strict rule: Holy Communion, the Eucharist – which is highlight of Orthodox liturgy – is given only to Orthodox Christians. This rule discourages many parishioners to bring to the church their non-Orthodox friends or their non-Orthodox family members. Many focus group participants feel that this rule should be changed. (Misha–here you and I would agree that this rule cannot be changed. Period. All I can say is that nobody in my parish would agree with many of the focus group. But, the more pertinent point is that no GOA or OCA bishop has said anything that is even close to favoring inter-communion).
3) The question of who can serve as a sponsor in weddings but especially in baptisms (i.e. who can serve as “god-father” or “god-mother”). Today, only members of the Orthodox Church can be “god-fathers” or “godmothers” for Orthodox baptisms. Many parishioners, especially from the religiously mixed families, told us that they want the Orthodox Church to permit their non-Orthodox close friends or their non-Orthodox relatives to be god-fathers or god-mothers for their children. (Again, I am in disagreement with the focus group. The Holy Mystery is not a private service. As with baptism, the sponsors and the congregation members present (all should be invited of course) play critical roles in the Holy Mysteries and in the lives of the new Orthodox and the wedded couple.)
4) The problem of the marriages with non-Christians. (I disagree with the focus group and would like to point out two things. First, I have a feeling that there must have been quite a few cradle Orthodox on the focus group and that they were poorly catechized. Second, no Orthodox bishop or synod has proposed to change the rule.)
7) The desire for easier requirements for fasting. The Orthodox Church has strict rules on avoiding all meat (sometimes also fish) and dairy products on certain days every week and during relatively long periods of fasting which are part of Church liturgical calendar (including seven week long Great Lent preceding Easter). Many respondents feel that these rules are too excessive and pose unnecessary challenges on the ordinary church members, especially given the fact that they live and work in the non-Orthodox American society. (Again, this indicates poor cathechesis. One more time: no bishop or synod has changed our fasting regimen. Indeed, this is issue, as well as the marriage issue, are so important that they are on 2016 Pan-Orthodox Council. I just don’t see a unanimous vote for any change).
8) The need to allow married clergy to become bishops. (I am in agreement with the focus group as the circumstances have changed from those thta led to the promulgation of Canons 12 and 48 of the Council in Trullo. Indeed, I am very conservative here as my stand is based on the New Testament and the Apostolic Canons.)
9) The desire for the overall greater role of laity in the Church. (Again, I am in agreement with the focus group. There is no innovation here, unless ones history starts in the latter part of the Second Millennium).
10) A number of suggestions have been made in connection to the image and the ways of operation of American Orthodox bishops. Many parishioners said that bishops:
• should be more approachable and closer to people in the pews, that is, they should interact not only with clergy but also with ordinary parishioners;
• should be more accountable and transparent in their work;
• should be more consistent in equal treatment of all parishes and show less favoritism for certain churches and priests;
• should pay more attention to small Orthodox communities (especially missions) and their problems.” (Nothing remarkable here)
11) The need for greater emphasis on evangelization and reaching out into wider non-Orthodox society. The feeling commonly shared by many focus group participants was that – compared to other Christian denominations – Orthodox Churches remain “too parochial” and too focused on their internal lives. (Can any Orthodox Christian honestly label this an innovation, heresy or apostasy?)
12) The need to deal with the issue of the different status of men and women in the Church. Many parishioners felt that ancient practice of female deacons in the Church needs to be revised and restored an (although virtually none mentioned possibility for women to become priests). One more sensitive matter has been raised several times – the so-called “uncleanness” of women. There is no one clear and unified Church position on this subject, but the fact is that many clergy consider menstrual periods as being evil and unnatural and they prohibit their female parishioners to receive Holy Communion during their period of menstruation and during the 40 days period after giving birth. The focus group participants felt that Church needs to deal openly with this issue and to take a clear stand. (How can anyone think that the female deacons are an innovation? As for the rest, I would go with my bishop and priest; it is not a deal breaker for me, and I suspect neither it is for the focus group members)
13) The desire for “Orthodox Unity in America.” (Vow, yet another dasdardly innovation that is evidence of apostasy in the GOA and the OCA!!!)
14) Wider usage of various musical instruments in the Church. (Over my dead body! But, is it such a critical indicator of Orthodoxy gone wild?)
That was it. Folks, according to MIsha, 140 parishioners in 9 GOA and 6 OCA parishes reflect the views of the laity, deacons, priest and bishops of the OCA and the GOA. Not only that, but the responses by and large are not indicative of innovation and heresy. I can think of only one circumstance that could lead someone to come to the same conclusion as dear Misha: a myopic and profoundly flawed view of Holy Tradition, most assuredly a legacy of the Latin influence in the church.
Again, Carl, I think you are wasting your time since I stand by every word I said.
Good job Carl. You did your part, just let Misha be.
Peter.
Carl,
My reference to the PAOI study was in response to the comment above by Jacob:
“Stop repeating all this nonsense about how Orthodox in the West are all compromised.”
I did not rely on it, or at least not it alone, to show that the GOAA and OCA were flirting with heterodoxy. So, if you want to defend the Pat. Bartholomew’s relations with Rome, or the Fr. Arida contingent, or Fr. Hopko’s little contribution toward the normalization of homosexuality in the culture, by all means do so. But setting up little straw dummies and knocking them down is a waste of your time.
Who cares?
BTW, having too much free time today, I went back through the PAOI study and made some notes:
Only 28% self-identified as “conservative”; i.e., those who believe that “the Church should avoid changes to life and theology.”; approximately 40% said any changes should be “evolutionary”, whatever that means. These were labelled, counterintuitively “traditional”. Approximately 30% were moderate/liberal.
Note: The only category that states that changes in life and theology should even be “avoided” i.e., (that they are suspect, not necessarily insurmountable obstacles) are the “conservatives”. Essentially, only about 28% of Orthodox in the OCA and GOAA even identify as being committed to the degree of conservatism present even in their own experience, much less the actual practice of traditional Orthodoxy.
37% agreed that, “In a rapidly changing world, it is essential that priests should be open to changes and adaptations of established Church traditions to contemporary realities.” as opposed to “In a rapidly changing world, it is essential that priests follow the inherited traditions and practices of the Church.” That is, almost 40% are promoters of “change from within” even though their own jurisdictions are more liberal than other American jurisdictions and by far more liberal than Orthodoxy over the ages.
31%, almost 1/3, believe that the ordination of women is important enough that it needs to be discussed. “Discussed” in these matters usually means “allowed”.
10% of GOA clergy and 13% of their laity believe that it is “very important” for WO to be discussed. These are the hard core supporters of WO
Fig 41a – only a small percentage say that we need to get back to the way things were in the past. Almost all respondents either think that their church is too strongly tied to the past, that it is making numerous changes, or that it is adhering to tradition. The contrast is not among the numbers, but with reality. Each of these jurisdictions are quite liberal, GOA in particular, when it comes to modern practices. There seems to be little if any consciousness of this, however, among the laity.
When you add the “supporters” to the “unsure” regarding women at the altar, you get almost half of all respondents open to women altar servers (49%) and deacons (48%).
“Fig. 62. ‘Even if homosexuality is wrong, the civil rights of gays and lesbians – including legal status for ‘same-sex couples’ – should still be protected.’
This question assumes a lot. It assumes that gays and lesbians have civil rights based on their status as homosexuals, i.e., that somehow these rights exist either to be protected or violated. That says a tremendous amount about PAOI. Even with the completely corrupt nature of the question, still a bare majority disagreed. Yet, of course, that meant that just under 50% either agreed or were unsure.
If ever there were an accurate statement of Holy Tradition, it is this: ” Fig. 63. – The primary calling of married women is in the sphere of home and family. All other social and business activities should be considered as secondary in comparison with family duties and obligations.” This statement managed to obtain only about 40% agreement.
Really, it’s all in how you package things.
I agree that the study’s categories are really not very helpful. Better categories would be:
-Traditionalists
-Progressives
-Evangelicals
-Ethnicists
Traditionalists and Progressives are opposites, and Evangelicals and Ethnicists are opposites, but most people are in between these poles.
What you find in many Greek parishes are Progressive Ethnicists: Orthodoxy is all about being Greek, except when it’s more comfortable to be Progressively American.
Many Traditionalists tend also to be Ethnicists: Orthodox is the way it’s done in Russia or the way it’s done on Mt Athos.
The OCA is dominated by Progressive Evangelicals intent on “engaging the culture”: New calendar, no head-coverings.
I myself am more of an Evangelical Traditionalist: New calendar plus head-coverings, the latter being more important than the former.
Of course, many people are in the middle, a little of all four.
Pdn Brian,
“Many Traditionalists tend also to be Ethnicists: Orthodox is the way it’s done in Russia or the way it’s done on Mt Athos.”
You are a bit confused. Ethnicists want the old language, festvals, etc. A little embassy of Greece/Russia/Serbia. There is nothing ethnicist about having things done the way they are in Russia, Serbia, Athos, etc. That is simply (traditional) Orthodoxy. A “traditionalist” simply rejects the innovations of the last century or so in favor of Orthodoxy as it was ubiquitously practiced before then, and still is in their parishes.
But the rest of your post I agree with completely.
Misha, don’t get wrong. I’m not speaking of these categories as separate boxes into which everyone can be sorted. Rather, as I said, they represent poles of belief between which most people fall.
Sure, some Traditionalists are what you might consider perfectly Traditional, which would put them exactly mid-way between Evangelical and Ethnic, but most people will be a little to one side or the other.
I’m more toward the Evangelical side: I believe in preserving many traditions that most everyone has given up, but not many traditions that are much less important and that make becoming and remaining Orthodox unnecessarily difficult for people, like living on two calendars.
You seem to me to be a little more on the Ethnic side. You go by Misha instead of Mike and hold up the way things are done in the old country as the standard, as if everyone in the old country does things the same way (not true) and always has (not true).
Maybe I’m wrong about you. Maybe you are perfectly Traditional. Maybe you’re even a little more Evangelical than Ethnic. It’s still true that all Traditionalists are between those two and most tend more toward one than toward the other.
By the way, about this:
Don’t forget that some Traditionalists view the patristic revival of the last century as an innovation and vehemently defend the accumulated Latinisms of 19th Orthodoxy. Vladimir Moss is one example. See here and here.
That’s the problem with traditionalism: It leaves you with no way to say what may change and what may not change, forcing you to defend today the changes you denounced yesterday. To work out our salvation, we have to believe in something other than the abstraction of “tradition”; we have to believe in particular traditions for particular reasons involving particular persons.
I actually have quite a bit of respect for Vladimir Moss. And I have debunked some alleged “Latinisms” in the past which are, in fact, Orthodox. Headcoverings, standing for prayer (sans pews) and the Church calendar were ubiquitous, or practically so.
To each his own. I have resolved to have as little as possible to do with Orthodox modernism. I have no doubt that traditional Orthodoxy will move forward and if modernism survives, so be it, if not, so be it. We all make choices as to where the merits lie.
Archbishop Kallistos Ware would agree with you.
Just saw this on the Ancient Faith blog: http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2015/09/23/a-new-ecclesiology-for-the-orthodox-church/
This is going to be a real barn burner, especially for the “No Foreign Bishops in America” crowd.
Peter
Peter:
The major problem with this post on AFR is that THERE IS NO DIASPORA. A diaspora indicates that people in one region belong to another. This is just a false premise. Originally used with the Jews, maybe they all belonged to Israel, but with Christians, we worship in “spirit & truth.” We don’t belong to any one region. Orthodox Christians coming to the US aren’t going back to Russia; same with Syrians, Bulgarians, Greeks, etc. America is the land of immigrants and none of us belong where our ancestors came from. AND, the Orthodox bishops in these foreign countries have no authority over territory outside their own nor people who are no longer in those territories. Orthodox Canon Law supports this vigorously. THERE IS NO DIASPORA.
Well, I am a member of the English diaspora, but nobody ever seems to talk about that…..
Tony I don’t disagree with you its just that the powers that be in all the jurisdictions don’t care.
Peter
Thus illusions die a hard death.
As a practical matter, the only real possibilities were for everyone to join under Constantinople or for all foreign jurisdictions to release their bishops and flocks to unite with the OCA.
Now, I for one had no doubt that the Phanar would never release its jurisdiction here. It’s hierarchs have said as much, and from early on in the process. The only real variable was whether any of the other churches would join under the Phanar. Well, we have answers now and the answers have generally been in the negative.
In a sense, it is only newsworthy to those who had some faith that the EA’s were going somewhere. There seems to be some concern on Antioch”s part with how the EA’s are organized as well. But the important point to take away is that jurisdictional anomaly is here to stay in America.
And what that all has to do with theosis, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and visiting widows and orphans, I could not tell you.
The success or failure of this venture was always in Constantinople’s hands. If the EP wanted it to fail, all he needed to do was continue to act like the pope of the East.
If he wanted to be a true shepherd, he would have treated his fellow primates like equals and proposed humble and self-emptying solutions that put someone else in charge. Now excuse me, I almost choked on my drink breaking out laughing while writing that last sentence. I need to catch my breath and blow my nose.
One final thought: when is the last time Constantinople did something that facilitated unity that was other than “unity” with Constantinople? And how often has Constantinople facilitated schism, as long as the schismatics came under their jurisdiction? Allowing Constantinople to be in charge of a unity project is like inviting the fox to guard the henhouse. When I learned that the Greeks insisted that GOA bishop chair every single committee of this episcopal assembly, I knew it would fail.
Statement from the Episcopal Assembly:
http://www.assemblyofbishops.org/assets/files/docs/Assembly%20Message%2C%202015%20Final.pdf
I think that Antioch is doing what it needs to do to pastor and protect the Syrian Orthodox Christians that have been displaced by the Syrian/ISIS war, much of which America has fostered and allowed to spin out of control because of our abandonment of Iraq.
I don’t view this as harshly as George and other view this, just Antioch doing what it must to protect its people as they come to our country.
We will see if the work of the Assembly will be put on hold or not. Personally I do not see American Administrative unity anytime in the foreseeable future. People like Misha and Edward hate the Greeks and the EP. People like Francis Frost hate Russians and the MP. Others are OCA triumphalists even as the OCA spirals into heresy. The Other Ethnic Orthodox are holding on to their jurisdictional turf for whatever reason (money, power, prestige, etc.)
At the end of the day we Orthodox are a completely disorganized and scattered church here in America that needs to desperately grow up and become mature. When you have comments like:
1.) No Foreign Bishops to control American Orthodox Churches;
2.) The EP and Greeks want to control the Rest of Us
3.) ROCOR is brainwashed by Moscow
4.) the MP is a Kremlin lackey and a mouth piece for Putin,
5.) Etc.
Shows that we so-called American Orthodox are vastly immature and adolescent in our mindset, and lack even the most basic of tools to run and govern an American Church. No Patristic mindset, no love to spread the Gospel, nothing truly Christian whatsoever.
Now add to this the fact that with the rise of so-called “Gay-Friendly” Orthodox Churches, Atheism, apathy towards religion and the continuation of the “Dumping-Ground” phenomenon that George has talked about, much of our discussion about a unified American Orthodox Church is going to be rendered moot in fairly short order.
So for the immediate future we will keep going along like we have been until the money dries up here in the West, especially in America, the political back and forth with Moscow stops or diminishes, and the persecutions hit and hit hard, and then and only then will we have a Unified American Orthodox Church, maybe with our own hierarchy, because we will be forced to have one.
Peter
I don’t know, but I’m not really panicking after reading this. I agree that we need unity, but I also agree that this unity needs to come after mindful discernment.
I think a more pressing issue for AOCNA is assigning a Bishop to oversee the Diocese of the West.
Not to mention the South and let His Grace, Bp. Antoun finally retire.
George:
There is another way to view all this.
While you and others have predicted the imminent demise of America and Western civilization, it is clear that the “mother churches” do not share your pessimism about America and the West. It is clear that they view their connection to America and the West as essential to their own survival.
After all, it is only from America and the West that they derive the financial, political and spiritual support to keep operating and to survive the many challenges and threats to their life and ministry.
The success or failure of this venture was completely in the hands of Constantinople. Had the EP thought like the universal pastor that he claims to be, he would have realized that to bring unity to the Orthodox Church in this particular barbarian land would require him relinquishing all of his papal claims over this territory. It would require him showing leadership and Christ like behavior in emptying himself and proposing a solution whereby someone else was in charge.
I almost spilled my drink breaking out in laughter as I wrote that last sentence. As I have said many times before, the EP has all of Turkey to convert (and Greece could stand a little reconversion, from what I hear — he is supposed to have a little influence there). He should get busy doing that and but out of everyone else’s business.
The fact is that everyone knows the emperor has no clothes, and the only ones who tend to go under the EP are schismatics who want an excuse to leave their jurisdiction — and the EP is alays happ to comply and create another schism. The EP is an empty shell of a patriarchate with more bishops than faithful in its canonical territory. We have a name in America for bishops who have no faithful — vagante. Not saying he is one, just that his bishop to faithful ratio resembles one.
As a Priest in the Antiochian Archdiocese my thoughts after reading the letter were “They need us now…”
Why can’t we be there for them as a united American Orthodox Church? Why apparently is the only way to be there for Antioch is to stay in separate jurisdictions? Wouldn’t we be able to do so much more for Antioch if we pooled all our resources?
About the language thing, having a united American jurisdiction will in no way prevent various languages to be used as needed. That a united American jurisdiction automatically means everything will be in English is false. We will and should continue to meet people where they are, if that means using another language to communicate, we will and should continue that.
Not to mention that a majority of Antiochian priests likely can’t speak a lick of Arabic. Which is fine.
What is the value of a Syrian refugee coming to the average Antiochian parish versus any other parish? My current Antiochian parish, since I’ve moved, has nearly more Russians than any other ethnic groups, and no Arabs at all.
And that’s an interesting point. In many parishes in this country, the unity of the ethnic groups is already in place. It only seems to be hard to imagine for those tied to various ghettos–and those parishes have their own beauty too. But it is a conscious choice to not move towards a greater outward show of unity.
We would certainly have open arms it any Arabs moved into our city. My point is that outside big cities and ethnic ghettos, the average Orthodox parish is going to be more or less the same. Some Orthodox hierarchs need to move out of their echo chambers and visit parishes where this ethnic unity already exists, and see that it’s not so scary after all.
I remember a few Antiochian parents told me, “We speak to our children in Arabic, and they answer us in English.” Well, out of the mouths of babes and sucklings.
Lest we forget there are many of us who have a debt of gratitude to the Patriarchate of Antioch which, either by direct action or the power of example, opened up the doors of Orthodoxy to us. Now, in its hour of need, would it be right to say “Thank you for everything but now its time to leave you behind?” Even a grown child, one already living on his/her own, would be considered cruel by distancing themselves from their parents in their time of struggle. Should the Antiochian Archdiocese in this country, the recipient of so many generosities from the Mother Church, now contemplate the same?
I would very much like an unified Orthodox Church in this country. Its the right thing to do on so many levels but in this time of crisis I don’t think its wrong to say “We’re not quite ready, we have concerns and obligations that need to be attended to that mean our focus will be diverted for a time. Until then, we plan to continue our relationships with you and keep the door open.” This sounds reasonable given what is happening with the potential extinction of the Antiochian Patriarchate in its own land and the suffering of our brothers and sisters.
In the meantime if you do have a concern for what is happening in the Middle East, and especially in the territories of the Antiochian Patriarchate, you don’t have to wait for a unified American Orthodox Church to take action. You can send support to IOCC right now and direct it for Syrian relief. You could even send a check directly to the Antiochian Archdiocese and they will get it to the people most in need.
Father, what I have trouble understanding is why we have this false dilemma between helping refugees and having a canonical administration?
I agree with our gracious host that perhaps the EA has become a tool of the Phanar, and it may be right that we should aim for something else. But I disagree with the implication that we can’t have unity and still help the mother churches in their time of need. It’s a bit of a non-sequitur in my mind.
There is no dilemma, but at the present moment there is no structurally unified Orthodox Church in this country while the needs of the Mother Church are very present and real. Wisdom would seem to indicate it would be good to deal with the crisis first.
Now, please understand something. I’m an attached Priest far removed from the power structures of my Archdiocese. I have no special knowledge or insight into all the why’s of this decision and I’m sure there’s more nuance here than I know. My opinions are my own and because there are people in my parish who have immediate family and connections in Syria I have some idea of what they must be going through as they see the news and hear from the “Old Country”. My intuition tells me that those feelings may be shared by others in my Archdiocese, including in the leadership. I believe there may be genuine concern about the stability and, perhaps, even the survival of the Patriarchate and the faithful there and that this may be part of why the formal unification processes have been put on hold because for many in the Archdiocese those links are not abstractions but real people and their immediate needs may require energy and focus in the present that make other needs and concerns less immediate.
So its perfectly possible that my thoughts on this matter are in error. In my prior posts I simply reflected on that which came to my mind as I was pondering all of this. Its my heart talking and so people can take it for what its worth.
Several thoughts on this:
—Canon 28 of Chalcedon “specifically” speaks of the barbarian lands around the Black Sea. This was logical since Constantinople’s immediate territorial influence extended around the Black Sea area.
—In the words of the late Protopresbyter John Meyendorff, expert in Byzantine History & Theology, the “First among equals,” the Bishop of Constantinople, was exactly what the term says. The Bishop of Constantinople “ran the meetings” when all the other bishops met. He also was an arbitrator in disputes among the bishops and kept the official church records of the empire (Constantinople being the capital city). That’s it! He had no extensive powers or authority. What gave him any power was that he was the “Emperor’s Bishop” and the Emperor had the army. An out of line bishop could find himself removed by military force.
—The Diptychs were NEVER meant for any form of Church Organization. The ranking in the diptychs of the ancient churches of Christendom was done specifically if a city fell and another “first among equals” was needed. Note that Rome was originally 1st, but considering that Rome fell into heresy, Constantinople became 1st. At the Council of Florence when ALL the ancient patriarchs fell into heresy, this left Moscow in reality as the 3rd Rome (much disputed idea).
—According to Canon Law and Apostolic Tradition, foreign bishops have no authority outside their local territory. For America, no foreign bishop has any authority here; not Moscow; not Istanbul; not Damascus; etc. Churches were established in territories, bishops were appointed and these bishops ran their own affairs in their own territory without any foreign influence.
—The only way to solve the canonical anomaly in the US is for all the Orthodox bishops to join in a Synod of bishops in America; cut the ties of foreign bishops stating Canon Law gives them no authority here and organize a unified American Orthodox Church without any foreign influence.
Seem to remember hearing that the often remembered Met. PHILIP, offered to “fall inline” with the Pt. of Constantinople if that see was transferred to North America.
For one, I miss his take on these deliberations. I pray that someone will be able take up his vision of a unified church in North America. He opened doors that were otherwise shut.
DN.C;
+ Philip was wiley. You see, once + Bart leaves Istanbul, he is no longer “1st among equals.” Therefore, this title goes to the Pat. of Antioch. Furthermore, the doors for real unity were opened in 1970 with a real autocephalous Orthodox Church in America. And, as SCOBA decided going back to 1961, all the canonical bishops would join this church. The Albanians joined; the Romanians joined; the Bulgarians joined; but the Greeks (+ Iakavos) and the Antiochians (+ Philip) reneged on their promise to SCOBA. Imagine if all the churches joined the Synod of the only autocephalous church in 1970? In fact, + Iakavos was offered the Primate position in this Synod and he refused. 45 years later, the Orthodox Churches in North America are still wrangling over unity. And why? Because two of the main bishops (+Iakavos and + Philip) refused. A true lack of vision and double-talk within SCOBA. Instead, + Iakavos was forcefully retired in 1994-95, praised as a great Greek leader and buried at the Greek seminary in Brookline, MA. + Philip reneged and tried to pump up the Antiochians as an “autonomous church.” Well, everyone saw the great result of the “American Arab Church” after + Philip’s death and the Old Country Bishops descended on the US to install their own Old Country Bishop as Metropolitan. Some autonomy; some joke. Reverting to 1940. We do not have administrative unity because the two hierarchs who could have made this a reality REFUSED. Now, + Bart wants to run this show. A foreign bishop making dictates to churches in a territory he has no canonical authority over. Yep, this makes lots of sense. Jumping from one non-canonical reality into another non-canonical reality. Foreign bishops have no canonical authority in America.
I would like to see some documentation where the Greeks and Antiochians somehow pledged to join any allegedly autocephalous American Church which might spring up, regardless of its origin. I’ve heard this reference before and believe it to be spurious. There have been several attempts at American autocephaly. The OCA is only the latest one of these experiments.
Misha see the link below.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ligonier_Meeting
I’m familiar with Ligonier. None of the bishops there actually challenged their mother churches. Though the mere rumor that Abp. Iakovos intended to do so was all that was needed to torpedo his leadership of the GOAA
“And, as SCOBA decided going back to 1961, all the canonical bishops would join this church.”
Moreover, Ligonier was in 1994. I assume by your response you know of no promise from the churches of Constantinople or Antioch to join some purportedly autocephalous American church to be formed in the future. That is what has been asserted. Thus with the granting of the “tomos” to the OCA in 1970, no one reneged on anything. Furthermore, there was no promise made at Ligonier (24 years later, in 1994) to form an autocephalous American church.
So, the whole thing is a crock. Mole hills rather than mountains.
Misha:
Between 1961 and 1970, SCOBA met many times. You can read the minutes of these meetings and see clearly that all the bishops agreed to join an autocephalous Orthodox Church in America. Once this became a reality in 1970, the EP and Greeks in general, came up with every reason under the sun why this was non-canonical. Even to state that ONLY Istanbul had the right to grant autocephaly based on Canon 28 of Chalcedon. Ridiculous. Met. Philip played the fence between the Greeks and the OCA (typically Byzantine), but never had serious intentions of following through with SCOBA decisions. So, for 20 years, the situation for unity remained stagnant. In 1994, + Iakavos saw that his legacy was ending and he wanted to finally follow up on what SCOBA put forward in 1961. At the Antiochian Village (Ligonier), + Iakavos and + Philip thought they could re-start the the move toward unity. This could then be credited as a Greek/Antiochian initiative and not OCA/Russian. At the conclusion of Ligonier, a nice declaration was made by all the bishops to move forward toward unity (Note: All the language and documents were drawn up by the OCA) The Ukrainian bishop decided to do + Iakavos in and called Istanbul to inform them that + Iakavos was going to betray them. + Iakavos was then retired; all the Greek bishops were made directly responsible to Istanbul and the new Greek Met from Australia did everything to destroy SCOBA and any unity attempts. He refused to attend SCOBA meetings unless he alone were head of SCOBA since he alone represented Istanbul. Instead of Met. Philip protesting, he and others went along with the new Greek Met’s hissy-fit. Eventually, SCOBA would be disbanded and the Ass. of Bishops with structure according to the diptychs would be put in place. (Note: the diptychs were never meant for any form of church organization) Thus, the Greeks would lead with Antioch and Moscow. The OCA was relegated to nothing status. What the Ass. of Bishops is, is a non-canonical structure formulated in the US with foreign bishops controlling the destiny of the American Church. A total sham and should have been rejected from day #1 by the OCA.
Frankly, Tony, I don’t believe you. The notion that the Greeks and Antiochians would pre-emptively agree to join an allegedly autocephalous church to be created unilaterally by Moscow seems ludicrous to me. Furthermore, none of the bishops involved in SCOBA, absent authorization from their synods in their home countries, would even have the authority to agree to such a thing.
Now, there may have been some agreement that if an autocephalous church were in the works with the approval of Constantinople, Antioch, etc., that pending the approval of the mother churches their jurisdictions in American would be released to the new church.
However, I doubt if it ever got to that level. Mostly just smoke and mirrors and assurances that they all, eventually, want an autocephalous church in America. “Lord make me chaste and righteous, but not yet!”
Now, I do agree with you regarding the AB, it was a sham from the beginning. There was clamor for movement and the powers that be decided to move sideways rather than lead. However, if you think about what Moscow actually did in purportedly granting autocephaly to the OCA, you can come to one of two conclusions:
1. Moscow (read “KGB”) actually believed that it could unilaterally create a truly autocephalous church on territory where another jurisdiction had a larger presence, by far, than the ROC; or
2. The autocephaly, restricted in the tome to only those OCA possessions they held at the time and completely excluding other Orthodox presences in America from their jurisdiction (read the Tomos if you doubt me) was, in itself, a sham or, at best, some provisional attempt (among several in the 20th century) to get a local church off the ground here without interfering with any one else’s alleged jurisdiction.
Of course, that is not autocephaly at all.
Misha says:
September 25, 2015 at 10:44 am
Frankly, Tony, I don’t believe you. The notion that the Greeks and Antiochians would pre-emptively agree to join an allegedly autocephalous church to be created unilaterally by Moscow seems ludicrous to me. Furthermore, none of the bishops involved in SCOBA, absent authorization from their synods in their home countries, would even have the authority to agree to such a thing….
Misha:
SCOBA was formulated as a clearing house for all the canonical Orthodox bishops. They would meet, talk about common problems and issues and work on projects together. The Orthodox Christian Education Commission was one of these. SCOBA also agreed to “work toward a unified Orthodox Church which would be called, The Orthodox Church in America.” (Directly from SCOBA minutes) I’m sure the bishops of SCOBA did not know how this would be accomplished, but asked Fr. Alexander Schmemann to help them in this endeavor. In 1970, via Fr. Alexander’s efforts, the Tome of Autocephaly was granted from the ROC to the Metropolia. Please note, Fr. Alexander went to Istanbul 1st, but they told him, “Go to your mother church to get your autocephaly!” And he did!
Misha, you don’t have to believe me, these are historical facts. In fact, you can read, “The Orthodox Church” newspapers from 1970 through 1990 and read about SCOBA and how Fr. John Meyendorff (editor of the paper) asked Met. Philip and + Iakavos time and again when they were going to follow up on their own commitment to join the OCA.
Show me a written commitment to join the OCA or let it go.
Misha:
I told you, read the minutes of SCOBA from its beginnings. You’ll have to dig a little or visit a good Orthodox theological library.
If it existed, you would have produced it by now. Case closed.
Misha:
I suggest you and/or others questioning SCOBA, Autocephaly, + Iakavos, + Philip, Ligonier etc. regarding Orthodox unity in the US, contact bishops who are still alive and interfaced in these endeavors. One in particular, Met. Theodosius, retired Met. of the OCA who lives in Canonsburg, PA. He interfaced with all of these personalities, SCOBA and received the Tomas of Autocephaly from Moscow in 1970. He has or is writing a book regarding all of this. Clearly everyone will read about this period of the American Orthodox Church and see that Istanbul was ALWAYS the greatest obstacle to Orthodox Unity in America!
Archbishop Iakovos of fond memory, lead the charge for an American church, but was put down by the EP, which further lead to his dethronement. What followed next was the “elevation” of the bishops to metropolitans, so the EP could manage them a lot better. If only we had leaders like the brave Iakovos again!
If we were all more humble, Orthodoxy unity in America would happen quite naturally. But since we seek to have our own way, God has given to us that which we desire.
Amen!
This is true.
Incessant wrangling turns a lot of people VERY OFF.
I’ll just leave this right here. Add it to the list of why this won’t work in America. The EP has been sending official delegation teams to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Kievan Patriarchate for months now through the Ukrainian Orthodox Church USA. http://www.uocofusa.org/news_150922_1.html. http://www.cerkva.info/en/news/patriarch/7414-sbb-usa-2015.html
I also believe but cannot prove the some KP representatives were at the recent meeting of all EP bishops in Constantinople. Personally I like it. Keeps it interesting.
George:
The failure of the Chambesy process does not reflect a change in Orthodox ecclesiology. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that the “mother churches” do not trust each other enough to implement the agreement. The reasons for this is clear. The ‘big players’ have a record of ignoring the established canonical norms of conduct.
The Antiochian bishops statement and prior statement ofd the Antiochian Patriarchate make clear that the reasons for Antioch’s pull back is its unresolved conflict wit the Patriarchate of Jrerusalem. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem has created its own diocese in Qatar on the territory of the Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East. The Ecumenical Patriarchate has not carried forward its own promise to resolve the issue. Therefore tha Patriarchate of Antioch, which previously has suspended its participation in the Chambesy process, is now renouncing its agreement to that protocol. Clearly, these actions reelect the condition of the mother churches themselves rather that the condition of the church in he “diaspora’.
As always, the politics of the church is reflective of the geopolitical conditions that affect the mother churches. Possible, when the current period of leaderless chaos in the international arena abates, the Church will be able to resume its own goal of canonical unity and regularity.
One of the posters above accused me of “hating” the Russians. Sigh. As I have explained numerous times, nothing is further from the truth. I don’t hate anyone, least of all Russia or the Russian people. I grew up among Russian emigres and learned the faith in the Russian Orthodox Church – the Russian Metropolia, predecessor to the OCA of today. My family spoke the Russian language at home, and we still do. I learned the Orthodox Liturgy first in Church Slavonic. Indeed, I am probably the last cantor between Chicago and the west coast who can still sing the Liturgy in Slavonic. For several years, our St George Cathedral in Wichita held intermittent Slavonic Liturgies for the newly arrived Russian emigre’s and I was asked to sing those services. Here in Oklahoma we have many Russian and Ukrainian friends with whom we socialize frequently.
I do not hate anyone. What I DO HATE is the inhuman and destructive ideology of “political Orthodoxy” which is used by some to justify the mass killing of fellow Orthodox Christians for the sake of a madman, a mass murderer, who is still the head of the KGB. This “political Orthodoxy” is a deviation from the Gospel message of love and reconciliation. It is nothing less than a demonic force that is destroying the Orthodox Church from within. It is routinely propounded here on this web-site by ignorant and arrogant fools. More on that in a minute.
Misha wrote:
Of course, like most of Mishka’s pronouncements, this is absurd ahistorical nonsense. It is a perfect exemplar of his no-nothing jingoism.
Lets review a little history:
The Arian history was propounded in Alexandria, in the East, and enthusiastically am braced by a majority to the bishops in the East. St. Athanasios struggled against the majority opinion in order to preserve the truth of the Orthodox faith, hence the saying “Athanasius contra mundum”. At the first Ecumenical Council, Hosios, bishop of Cordoba, was the lone westerner, but served as St. Constantine’s adviser on ecclesiastical affairs. It’s was bishop Hosios’ influence that led St. Constantine to favor the Orthodox dogma of the Thenathropic Christ. After, St Constantine’s death, his heirs with the collusion of eastern clerics favored the Arians and again St. Athanasios was sent in exile from his flock.
The monophysite heresy originated in the writing of Dioscorus of Alexandrai, Severus of Antioch and Theodore of Mopsuestia, all in the East. It was the Tomos of St Leo, Pope of Rome in the West which was adopted as the true expression of the Orthodox Faith, by the Holy Fathers of the Council at Chalcedon.
The monothelite heresy was promulgated by the eastern Byzantine emperors Heraklios and his grandson Constans with the help of the eastern Patriarch Sergios of Constantinople. St. Maximos the Confessor fled to the West, where he was supported by Pope Martin in the true expression of the Orthodox Faith. Both St. Maximos and Pope Martin were arrested, tried, tortured and exiled by the ‘Orthodox” Emperoor with the collusion of the “Orthodox” Patriarach. So much for the vaunted “symphony” between clerical and secular powers in the Holy East.
As an aside, the relics of St Maximos the Confessor have recently been re-discovered within the monastery of named after him in the place of his exile in Tsageri, region of Racha in Georgia.
We might note, that St. John of Damascus was able to defend the Orthodox veneration of the Sacred Icons only because he lived outside the “symphony between the Iconoclastic emperors and the iconoclastic eastern clergy in Holy Byzantium.
Our history clearly demonstrates that God in “no respecter of persons” ; but rather gives “glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.” Romans 2:11 – 12
We can clearly see that there is no benefit to being either an ‘easterner’ nor a ‘westerner’. What matters is adherence to the truth of the Gospel and the performance of Christ’s saving commandments.
The well worn and ignorant trope of “degenerate, evil “West” and “holy spiritual East” is not only unfounded in the Gospel or the history of the Orthodox Faith, it is an ‘evil word’ because it has been used by the Putinist regime to justify proxy wars with the murder of innocent civilians and the destruction of Orthodox holy places. Anathema!
The so called divine “symphony” between church and state led to heresy and persecution of the Orthodox nearly as often as it fostered true piety. The modern day symphony between the MP and the Putins’ KGB (SVR) as propounded by the Archpriest Webster PhD is an abomination and a defilement of the Orthodox Faith.
OK, Francis, now you’ve really gone over the edge. The present West/East=immoral/traditionalist dichotomy only holds true in our times. Even die-hard anti-Latins acknowledge that it was not always thus. I myself have mentioned on at least a dozen or so times that the overwhelming majority of the ancient Christian heresies arose in the East. Nobody denies this.
To suppose however that morals, dogma, mores, sensibilities, etc. are frozen in aspic over millennia is nothing short of ridiculous.
Canons are!
Francis–Thank you for a timely correction of those on this blog who seem to worship all things Russian, and conversely disdain the West. Those of us who have come from nations oppressed by Orthodox Empires truly appreciate what a travesty the “official” history is. Keep at it!
I’m sorry, Frosty. Did you say something? I must have missed it.
Francis,
Modern Western apostasy is just that “modern” as in contemporary over the last century or so. You cite irrelevant examples from millennia past. Borrow some money and buy a clue.
As an an excellent corrective to the “Evil West /Holy East” trope, read the following article written by a monk of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate:
MISPLACED GAZE: A RESPONSE TO THE RECENT PARADES IN BELGRADE
Recently the streets of Belgrade bore witness to a gay pride parade, followed the next day by a procession of priests and laity chanting hymns and sprinkling holy water in order to cleanse the streets, as they put it, after the previous display. One nun was quoted as identifying recent years’ calamitous weather conditions as punishment from God on the Serbian people for allowing gay parades. One monk of the Serbian Church has offered us his critical response, pointing to a more pandemic moral problem facing the Serbian Orthodox people.
In recent days, two processions have taken place in Belgrade, the capital of Orthodox Serbia. One parade decried the so-called injustices of homophobia, while the following day’s parade decried the evils of homosexuality and sought to erase the defilement of the previous day’s parade. While in all honesty both sides have a point, my initial reaction was that both misplace their gaze, both identify really quite fringe elements as being the menaces of Serbian society.
The visible gay community in Serbia is tiny, and most of the people in it are foreign, of only partial Serb ancestry, or otherwise just kind of elite/foreign-minded—definitely not average Serbs by any stretch of the imagination. It is largely due to this that Serbs feel pressured into accepting something they don’t want. The parade almost certainly came about due to foreign influences and not from a request from Serbs themselves. Serbs are generally not interested in and not tempted by this particular aspect of Western influence.
Given that, I would like to see Serbia (and other Orthodox nations) take a more serious stance against their very serious abortion rates, which really is our huge glaring moral failure, as I see it. Few Serbs are actively politically gay, and so, how is that our national problem? It seems like finger pointing to distract from our true national sins. Homosexuality is not a problem in Serbia, there are hardly any gay people, and society wouldn’t permit them to organize or have the kind of public expression of their abominations, and so, how is that a huge problem that we must get upset about and exert our energies on? We have quelled this particular problem.
In Serbia I have met exactly two openly gay people. I have met about as many who at least openly state that homosexual acts are acceptable. The general culture is very openly against homosexuality. So how can anyone say with a straight face, as has this nun in the recent article, that the troubles which have befallen Serbia are due to punishment from God for allowing gay pride parades, when every day in Serbia thousands of children are murdered through abortion, and no one really cares? Isn’t the murder of a child infinitely worse? Serbia is a country where most women have had several abortions, but there is almost nothing in the way of any pro-life movement to counter that. I have been told by many people that up to a third of Serbian women are barren, due to having so many abortions. Serbia has one of the lowest birth rates in the world, on the same level as Japan. While other factors, especially poor economy, are certainly contributing to this, the lack of societal value for the lives of the unborn is certainly also a major factor. There can be no Orthodox Serbia, no future for us as a nation, if there are no children. As long as we so easily and readily abort the children God has entrusted to us, there is no need for homosexual activists to threaten our country, our people, our Church—we do it all ourselves.
A Google search for concrete figures on Serbia’s abortion epidemic shocked me before I even read any data: Google’s search tool which fills in your search as you type based on things others have searched for filled in “Abortion in Serbia” (in Serbian) with “Abortion in Serbia cost,” “Abortion in Serbia how much money,” and “Abortion Serbia pill.” The first page was filled with pages of medical centers offering abortions or a few news articles about a new abortive pill. There was only one site on the first page which spoke of abortion in a decidedly unfavorable light. This already speaks volumes.
In any case, in concrete numbers, Serbia has more children murdered each year by their mothers than it permits to live. In 2014, about 150,000 abortions were performed in Serbian hospitals and clinics, while only about 70,000 children were born. These numbers are almost unbelievable, and in light of these facts, who are we to blame anyone but ourselves for the disappearance of our nation?
Not much is done to stop it. The non-Orthodox West is, in a way, more moral than Orthodox Serbia in the sense of at least having a visible opposition to this great sin. There exists nothing on the same level as the pro-life movement in Western countries, where people visibly and actively working against abortion, where there are organizations women can turn to for help if they opt not to abort, or to get advice that encourages them away from abortions. Abortion is rarely discussed in Serbia, despite its high prevalence, and it is generally not a political issue as it is in Russia or America. It has become a great evil that people have become far too accustomed to, far too comfortable with.
Orthodox Christians at Washington, D.C.’s annual March for Life
In fact, abortion is an old “tradition” in Serbia. Older Serbs will quietly tell stories of how, in Ottoman times, women were forced to sleep with the local Ottoman officials on their wedding night, and so even right up until the end of Ottoman rule (from the 1830’s right up until 1912, depending on which part of Serbia you are in), it was a very common practice for the firstborn child, the one that in the Old Testament was offered to God, to be murdered upon birth for fear it was really a Turk—a child offered to the god of senseless nationalism. Today, the child is offered to the god of selfish individualism, and is it not this murderous idolatry for which the Lord might be punishing us?
While certainly, if a woman came to the Church, saying she was thinking of getting an abortion, she would be counseled against it, I have not heard any kind of public discourse against abortion. On the other hand, I have seen many statements from the Church against homosexuality and gays, heard sermons against them, etc. Yet, who are we preaching to? Where is the great danger? I don’t see where it is in Serbia. Abortion, however, remains epidemic and mostly totally undealt with in the public sphere. Abortion, not homosexuality, is Serbia’s national sin that we must deal with or face punishment from the Lord. And I fear that this focus on gays, while not technically wrong, just distracts our attention from weightier, more present matters, such as abortion.
It must also be stated that the march through Belgrade was organized by schismatics. The world needs to know that the Church of Christ is not about political activism or what are essentially media stunts. The individuals who marched through Belgrade do not represent the Church, and as schismatics who have cut themselves off from the Church, are not, in fact, blessing the city. Furthermore, Christians should not look down on others and proclaim that their very presence has defiled the streets of the city, rather, we should look upon our own sins and beg the Lord to forgive us, particularly when our nation is in the state it is. The true Church of Christ, on the other hand, held a prayer service the evening before the gay pride parade in Belgrade, in which the priests and people humbly supplicated our living God to have mercy on us and to bless and increase Orthodox families in the Serbian land. We, the Church, act in humility and love, we seek our answers from the God Who is the Giver of all good things. We do not march proudly in streets and denounce others as sinners, as defiling our country. We invite all to join us in the Church, in repentance, prayer, and humility, that He may bind us all into one, into His image, into His community of love.
A certain memory still burns in my mind: when I was going through the lists people write down in church for commemoration and typing them up for the priests, someone wrote “For all of the children that I have aborted, that my mother has aborted, and that my sisters and aunts have aborted.” I just cried. And this is what Serbia must deal with. This is our sin that we need to repent of or God will punish us more. We don’t need to repent for sins we haven’t committed, while we are in deep trouble for those which we ignore. And that is my fear for Serbia, and the Orthodox countries in general. May our God Who loves mankind have mercy on us and guide us to repentance, and bring an end to abortions and grant us to live in Christian marriages which are images of the life in Christ.
A Monk of the Serbian Orthodox Church
23 / 09 / 2015
Francis, your unabashed hatred of all things Eastern is really over the top here as are your tortured efforts at moral equivalence.
So what if the “visible” gay community of Serbia is tiny? At one time, it was “tiny” in America as well. Do you remember just two short decades ago when a liberal, Democrat president (and notorious philanderer) named Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Ace? It was right around this time that the Congress declared that “homosexuality was incompatible with military service.” Now we have an openly sodomist Secretary of the Army and decorated officers in the Army and Marine Corps are being cashiered because they reported instances of child sex-slavery among our allies in Afghanistan.
Given your insouciant unconcerns regarding the miniscule homosexualist presence in Orthodox countries, I can safely predict that when the LGBT agenda ravages Eastern Europe to the same extent it has destroyed the West, you’ll still be talking about St Shaakashvili and those wascally Wussians.
George –
I wouldn’t paint Francis with the ‘he hates everything Eastern’ brush. This is sort of what liberals do.
Mr. George, Mr. Fanning has been nominated to lead the Army because he is immensely qualified with over two decades of service in international security. That is what makes him totally qualified, LGBT or not, along with many other servicemen (and women) in the military. You seem to indicate that because he is openly gay, he is not eligible for this service.
Francis–Thank you for posting this important and timely article from a Serbian monk, who manages to be honest and Orthodox at the same time. BTW, let us look at abortion figures around the world.
The USA. Generally in decline since 1980s but still extremely high. See the graph at:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate.gif
Here are the figures from 2011 ( I am citing the Top !0 and then all so-called Orthodox nations, plus some others):
Percent of known pregnancies ending in legal abortions, most recent data (in order of decreasing percentage)
(country, year, percentage)
1. Greenland 2007 51.1
2. Russia 2008 44.7
3. Guadeloupe 2007 39.8
4. Nagorno-Karabakh 2007 38.1
5. Cuba 2007 37.0
6. Romania 2008 36.6
7. Estonia 2008 34.4
8. Bulgaria 2008 32.0
9. Martinique 2007 31.6
10. China (PRC) 2007 31.1
13. Moldova 2008 29.0
15. Belarus 2008 28.2
16. Georgia 2008 28.1
18. Kazakhstan 2008 26.8
19. Sweden 2008 25.8
26. Armenia 2008 23.2
27. Serbia 2008 23.2
30. United States 2005 22.6
31. Ukraine 2008 21.9
33. France 2007 21.4
34. Norway 2008 20.9
35. United Kingdom 2008 20.9
36. Canada 2006 20.7
38. Macedonia 2008 20.5
42. Japan 2007 19.1
43. Denmark 2006 18.8
48. Montenegro 2007 17.7
49. Italy 2008 17.4
50. Turkey 2008 17.0
58. Germany 2008 14.4
63. Greece 2005 13.3
72. Israel 2008 11.1
BTW, there are indications that the rate for Serbia is worse than shown in the above table and that the Serbian monk is right. According to this Wiki article, “Official data from the Belgrade Institute of Public Health claims that 23,000 abortions are performed in Serbia annually, but unofficial data suggests a number as high as 150,000.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Serbia)
I should also point out that the Greeks have the best rate of all nominally Orthodox countries. καλός καλή!
Most holy Theotokos, save us through your giving birth to God the Word.
Inspire all of us by the example of your most pure life and cooperation with the will of God.
Help us to pray sincerely that the Lord’s will be done on Earth, and not our own.
And entreat Your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, to have mercy on us sinners.
Most holy Theotokos, save us!
That’s beautiful, Monk James, thank you.
It seemed right to appeal for help to the Mother of God while so many other mothers are in so much pain and trouble that they are driven to murder their own children. What else could be said in the face of such horrifying statistics?
Ah, more meddlesome monks.
Makes perfect sense to me. The country is already infiltrated with the demons of abortion purveyors and the good monastic says the Church should stand aside as a new cohort of demons who want to normalize homosexuality marches right on in.
Maybe both problems could be addressed simultaneously? No, too logical.
Misha, you bring up an excellent point. I, for one, am tired of Orthodox dilettantes (such as this monk) who point out the grievous sin of “x” in order to excuse the grievous sin of “y.”
Yes, abortion is horrible. As someone who helped organize our annual Marches for Life here in T-Town, and who was ostracized by some in my extended family and who begged and pleaded to get other local Orthodox congregations involved, I get it. Abortion is bad. I’ve got the scars to prove my bona fides.
Having said that, I will say one thing for pro-abortionists: as opposed to the Brownshirts, they have never sought to force abortion on anyone or force a church to change its teaching. Today, we see embittered, raging queens who are demanding nothing less than adulation for their lifestyle. Those fascists who forced Kim Davis to grant them a licence and put her in jail, want her back in jail because now they want her signature affixed to their licence —even though the County gave them their licence. How intolerant is that?
The list of people who have had their livelihoods ripped away such as Brendan Eich or their business shuttered is a long and growing one. Will these people never be satisfied?
But I digress. I advise this Serbian monk (probably a closeted homosexual himself) to stop wagging his finger at those who are trying to uphold cultural norms that go back to the beginning of time itself.
George,
Thank you. I trust you to withhold posting anything of mine which crosses whatever line you may wish to draw for your site. I have made some sweeping statements about New Calendar Greeks and modernists and, of course, I did not mean to accuse every single person in GOARCH and certainly not you, who have been quite fair and indulgent when it comes to what you allow to be posted here. I admire your tolerance.
The gist of the original comment which has caused Monk James and Carl such stress was that I see the OCA and GOARCH as being in the process of succumbing to heterodoxy. That was the purpose of my qualifying my comment with “the jury is still out’. Of course, I can’t back away from the truth.
From my experience, in both jurisdictions, the problem seems concentrated in the Northeast and the West Coast. Alas, the Northeast is the ruling center of both. It does not seem to me a strain to suggest that this has to do with the environment in which the leadership finds itself. I am familiar with some in the OCA Diocese of the South and have great respect for their moral witness and humanitarian efforts. I’m sure the late Abp, Dmitri is pleased.
Nonetheless we have seen prominent actors in the OCA cheer on the SSM ruling of the SCOTUS, endorse same sex unions as a legal right, and generally advocate turning a blind eye to openly homosexual relationships. Scripture and Tradition clearly militate against this sort of thing. There have been Protestant attempts to twist scripture to only condemn, for example, temple prostitution. However, any honest scholar would admit that not only the New Testament but the Church Fathers condemn this behavior in the strongest terms. Either scripture and Tradition are authoritative or they are not. Denying their authority serves to separate one from the Church.
Istanbul is a different category. Pat. Bartholomew is in the unenviable position of trying to keep the Phanar alive there. The monks of Athos, and I, think he has exercised very poor judgment in this regard speaking of “the two lungs” of the Church as referring to the OC and RCC, much as Rome has done. His manner of receiving the pope and the writing of his Met. Elpidophoros have not been encouraging either. Suffice it to say that all of this does not accurately reflect Orthodox ecclesiology and I am far from the only one suggesting it.
I could go on with other examples but see no value in doing so.
Monk James and Carl will just have to get over it.
George–“…this Serbian monk (probably a closeted homosexual himself)”???!!!
You have gone way over the top. Too bad.
George says:
Francis, your unabashed hatred of all things Eastern is really over the top here as are your tortured efforts at moral equivalence.
I haven’t found Francis Frost’s posts to be hateful to the East. Rather, it seems to be a counterbalance to a slavish devotion by many on this blog to al things Eastern – symphonia, ROC, Putin, et al. Orthodoxy should trump all of this political tripe. When Obama is gone, Putin is gone and Kirill is gone we will still have Orthodoxy, God willing.
Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, 381
Canon II
The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice.
Yes, but who’s canonical territory is America? Every single other Orthodox jurisdiction besides Russia and those jurisdictions within the former Soviet sphere has categorically rejected the alleged autocephaly of the OCA. Moreover, Moscow behaves in some respects as if it does not take OCA autocephaly seriously at all (i.e., ROCOR). On top of that, OCA does not enforce its alleged claims to exclusive jurisdiction in America.
Thus, in truth, no one at all really respects the OCA”s alleged autocephaly. But what do you expect? The tomos itself contains so many exceptions that it amounts to giving the OCA less than exclusive jurisdiction here – – really, the MP/KGB gave it no more than it already had, except after the tomos, it could claim the right to consecrate its own chrism.
Thus, foreign bishops have a perfect right to operate here, there being no serious autocephalous American Church. Of course, the Phanar claims America under canon 28 of te IVth Council, but the Greeks are the only ones who take that claim the least bit seriously at all.
Misha:
You don’t get it. You’re probably ROCOR, of course. We are talking about ORTHODOX CANON LAW as outlined at Ecumenical Councils not some local, insignificant council. Priests are appointed to a particular parish by their bishop and have no authority outside that parish. Bishops are appointed to a specific territory or city and have no authority outside that territory; this includes the ancient Patriarchates. Istanbul has no authority in the US; nor Moscow; nor Damascus; nor any other foreign bishop. In a local territory, there is only one local church that can operate canonically. Following Orthodox Canon Law, this would be the OCA. Bishops in the US or overseas failing to recognize this are operating in a Protestant fashion making up their own rules. The Diptychs were never meant for any form of church organization and to use this format is an aberration of Orthodox Canon Law and used by foreign bishops for their own corrupt purposes.
Tony,
I think you don’t get it. Orthodox canon law is not like American or Western European civil law. It is designed to be applied by the bishops in their prayerful discretion. Bishops are, in a sense, above the law. The main exception to this is when there are sanctions listed against bishops. But again, even these laws are designed to be applied by councils of bishops using their discretion. Beyond that there is no enforcement mechanism.
Christ did not say he gave “canon law” the power to bind and loose. He gave that power to the episcopacy. Canon law, as a creation of the episcopacy, cannot possible have more authority than its creators.
Now, as to practical matters, all bishops here except those in the OCA may or may not be bishops of their own dioceses (I have Antioch in mind as the exception), but they are all bishops of foreign jurisdictions who have taken oaths of loyalty to these jurisdictions. There is nothing strange about that.
When Russia, for instance, was evangelized, the process began in 988 with the conversion of St. Vladimir (or earlier if you count St. Olga). From then until the mid-15th or 16th century (depending on how you reckon it), Russia was part of the “foreign jurisdiction” of Constantinople. It’s bishops, regardless of their political status, were bishops under the omophorion of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Only perhaps 450+ years later did the Church of Russia become autocephalous.
Being as how no one takes the autocephaly of the OCA seriously enough to act upon its implications, I have to assume that it is not really, truly autocephalous. Its own tomos recognized the jurisdictional claims of other local churches in America and gave it substantially only what it had at the time. In this sense, it is not even a geographical grant but one based on the then existent parish affiliations. Thus we can discount OCA autocephaly for jurisdictional purposes.
So, really, what you are saying is simply baseless American Orthodox church jingoism.
Misha:
You don’t know what you are talking about. The basic rule of church organization, going back to the Holy Apostles, was to appoint a local bishop to have authority over a local territory. This was then a repeated theme found in the Canons of the Orthodox Church for Church Ordo. The Canons, only reflect proper practice in the Church. No where in the early church or Byzantine/Roman Empire, does a bishop of one territory have authority outside his territory. Now, since you bring it up, Constantinople did “evangelize” the Rus and provide Bishops & priests. Now, anywhere evangelization takes place, it is only a matter of time when that territory becomes “autocephalous” and has it’s own bishops and priests. This happened in the US after the Russian Revolution with the Metropolia. This happened in Japan and countries of the Far East, etc. Foreign bishops cannot keep foreign territories as dioceses; this is not of the Apostolic Tradition nor Orthodox Canon Law. For Moscow, Istanbul, Damascus or any other foreign church to think they can have dioceses outside their own territory is not Orthodox and more of a Protestant fabrication.
The Orthodox Church of Japan is not autocephalous. It was the price that the Metropolia paid to the MP/KGB to grant them “autocephaly”.
It is not I who am ignorant of Orthodox practice. Moreover, according to your schema, there could be no evangelization outside the canonical territories granted this or that bishop, unless the whole world outside of those territories is given to the Phanar, as the Greeks assert.
“Now, anywhere evangelization takes place, it is only a matter of time when that territory becomes ‘autocephalous’ and has it’s own bishops and priests.”
Yes, for example, Russia obtained autocephaly by default in the 15th century when the Greeks left the Church. It was officially granted autocephaly by the Phanar about 600 years after its initial conversion, about 3 times the age of the Church in America.
“This happened in the US after the Russian Revolution with the Metropolia.”
No it didn’t, not really. The OCA’s alleged “autocephaly” is a façade created by the KGB which is respected by no one and not even enforced by the OCA itself. Moreover, the percentage of Orthodox here in the US is quite small, maybe one percent of the general population. Russia, for example, was largely Orthodox by the time of its autocephaly
Your argument is not with me but with every other Orthodox Church besides the OCA which has a presence on American soil. Moreover, if the OCA were interested in actually enforcing its alleged “autocephaly” on the grounds you state, it would first need to get rid of its own overlapping internal ethnic non-geographic dioceses.
Show me the canon that states how long a missionary diocese of a local Church can remain non-autocephalous and I will concede the point. But no such canon exists.
and the ranting continues…
“The OCA’s alleged “autocephaly” is a façade created by the KGB”
LOL.
I know you have been asked for documentation for this KGB plot-have you ever provided it? Have you even ever provided a satisfactory theory of why would the KGB find it in Soviet interest to give the US Church independence, and deny it to Japan?-your mischaracterization of the situation of the Church of Japan equal in erroneousness?
“is respected by no one and not even enforced by the OCA itself.”
Estonia.
The New Lands of Greece and Crete.
The Serbian Diocese of Timisoara.
The Serbian Diocese of Buda.
The Diocese of Dacia Felix
Moldova
Hungary
Qatar…
“Orthodox here in the US is quite small, maybe one percent of the general population.”
Jerusalem was about 120 souls when its autocephaly was established, and Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Cyprus each had less than one percent of the general population when their authocephaly was established.
Btw, unless you are a neo-con, the KGB is gone. But the OCA is still autocephalous.
“Your argument is not with me but with every other Orthodox Church besides the OCA which has a presence on American soil.”
No, just with those making specious arguments justifying it.
” Moreover, if the OCA were interested in actually enforcing its alleged “autocephaly” on the grounds you state, it would first need to get rid of its own overlapping internal ethnic non-geographic dioceses.”
No, it would not. For one thing, they date from when the primate of the OCA, including Abp. St. Tikhon during his tenure, exercised sole canonical jurisdiction over North America.
“Show me the canon that states how long a missionary diocese of a local Church can remain non-autocephalous and I will concede the point. But no such canon exists.”
And the canon that says that if your KGB slander were true it invalidates the OCA’s authocephaly-where is that?
And the canon that establishes outside its jursidiction….?
These rantings of the Synodal extremists became a laughing stock with the failure of the Russia Orthodox Church outside Russia inside Russia in the 90’s. No stock should be placed in them. Particularly when they depend on arguments advanced by the Phanar against their very existence.
Well, Isa, glad to see your alive and healthy.
The KGB ran the MP during the Soviet period. Even the Metropolia understood this. That is why they demanded autonomy in 1946, which was refused. What other excuse would they have for being out of communion with their mother church for so long?
The MP disregards the OCA’s autocephaly in its reunion with ROCOR. The GOARCH rejects it emphatically and always has. Antioch has also rejected it and has reiterated its insistence on maintaining its presence here in America. There is a Romanian jurisdiction here, a Serbian one, etc. So, perhaps you are right, you have been able to dig up someone who respects OCA’s autocephaly – – who was that again, oh yes, the Czech and Slovak Church.
Congratulations. For the record, did Antioch protest Jerusalem’s actions in Qatar? The reason I ask is because the OCA seems just hunky dory with having everyone and his uncle asserting jurisdiction here in America. Even its own tomos directs it to maintain cordial relations with trespassers, respecting their jurisdiction here. Strange tomos indeed.
BTW, I concede that there are no canons that mention the KGB. Nor are there which establish jurisdiction outside jurisdiction (whatever that means). And there is no canon that says how long a missionary diocese can remain so before being granted autocephaly.
Now, it is true that the KGB is gone. And I wish the neo-Cons could get through their head that that security service of a militantly atheistic communist regime no longer exists. I don’t think anyone disputes that the MP was infiltrated thoroughly by agents, collaborators and cooperators, nor that every move the MP made had to be approved by the Soviet Government. I will leave it to you do choose which department of the Soviet government approved the “autocephaly” of the Metropolia. And I’m sure it was just a coincidence that the Church of Japan was passed to the MP simultaneously with the grant of the tomos.
Now, hopefully we can avoid more ad nauseam crap like we’ve had before. I was responding to Tony, et al., who were being quite aggressive about contesting every one else’s jurisdiction here, deploring “foreign bishops” and slinging “canon law” as if it were free.
If OCA types, or wannabe OCA types in the AOCNA, want to engage in that kind of ranting and raving, then that is fine. The fact remains that everybody and their brother violates OCA’s alleged “autocephaly” with complete abandon, including its mother church. If you want to press the failed experiment forward, by all means do so. The rest of us will not be bothered by your claims of exclusivity though. If I were in the OCA, I’d spend more time getting my house in order.
But I am genuinely glad you are back here, Isa. On most every other issue, I have great respect for your opinion. Just this one little thing . . .
Thanks. It’s been too long (and too busy).
Yes, just this one little thing…
I finally got my hands on a copy of that ghastly book “The Oecumenical [sic] Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church” by Met. Maximos of Sardis (I had only briefly had access to the French, and could only skim it in the time allowed). An amusing part comes in the midst of his argument that the Phanar gets to intervene in other Churches as its sole prerogative, where he reproduces in toto a letter from Met./Abp/EP/Pope Meletius the many numbered to ROCOR upbraiding them for their dispute with Met. Eulogy, mixing canonical fact with his own ecclesiastical fantasies. (pp. 225-227). The Metropolitan leap frogs over the part that Meletius wrote the letter as Pope of Alexandria, not EP. So much for sole prerogatives (worse as the letter refers to the parties referring the matter to Pope Meletius).
He answers the argument that ROCOR put forth as to why it was not going along with the Chambesy scheme. Nonetheless it seems best at present that ROCOR does the right thing for the wrong reason.
“That is why they demanded autonomy in 1946, which was refused. What other excuse would they have for being out of communion with their mother church for so long?”
IIRC the problem is that Moscow again demanded a pledge of loyalty to the Soviet regime in the form now of promising not to engage in anti-Soviet activity in the US, along with the demand that Met. Theophilos be replaced by two candidates put forth by Moscow (with explicit right of Moscow not to confirm the Metropolia’s choice between even these two candidates…the Soviets having revoked the visas of some of the delegation invited to Moscow in Alaska and delaying the delegations arrival to miss the Synod and the election of the Patriarch. Btw, the US courts make a point that none of the visas from the delegations from Yugoslavia were revoked-you know any particulars of a ROCOR delegation to the Moscow Synod of 1945?
“The MP disregards the OCA’s autocephaly in its reunion with ROCOR.”
Au contraire, the MP has reiterated its confirmation of the Tomos of 1970 several times-and in this Chambesy scheme, if the MP didn’t, Met. Tikhon and not Bp. John would be vice-chairman of the Assembly, given that Bp. John comemorates Met. Tikhon, not the reverse.
“The GOARCH rejects it emphatically and always has.”
GOARCH rejects ROCOR’s every existence emphatically and always has-at least since it left Constantinople without canonical leave.
” Antioch has also rejected it and has reiterated its insistence on maintaining its presence here in America.”
No, not quite. Antioch stands on the sidelines de jure, while practising de facto, recognition, e.g. deferring to the OCA to glorify St. Raphael of Brooklyn.
” There is a Romanian jurisdiction here, a Serbian one, etc. ”
The majority of Romanians are with the OCA, and the Serbians a while back in court admitted the origin of their jurisdiction (which was being disputed in US court amongst Patriarchal and “Free” Serbs, the Serbian version of ROCOR) in the OCA. Both are back home disputing a Serbian diocese in Romania, and a Romanian diocese in Serbia, as I indicated above. Maybe when they recognize proper canonical order in the Mother Churches in the Fatherlands, they will recognize the proper canonical order here.
“So, perhaps you are right, you have been able to dig up someone who respects OCA’s autocephaly – – who was that again, oh yes, the Czech and Slovak Church.”
Don’t have to dig anyone up. Patriarch Kiril’s deacon proclaims it every DL that HH presides over, when he reads the diptychs (didn’t go over well when His All Holiness was visiting and had to hear it).
“The reason I ask is because the OCA seems just hunky dory with having everyone and his uncle asserting jurisdiction here in America. Even its own tomos directs it to maintain cordial relations with trespassers, respecting their jurisdiction here. Strange tomos indeed.”
No stranger than the modus vivendi in Estonia-did the Phanar’s Cypriot from the Congo nullify Moscow’s autocephaly under the Estonian Patriarch Alexei of blessed memory?
ROCOR seems OK with the Patriarchal parishes all over “Outside of Russia.”
Btw, the Tomos directs the OCA to win with honey rather than vinegar. Given the chaos of unbridled secularism, freedom of association, separation of church and state…(like we see in Ukraine, for instance), good advice (seeing how the reverse has worked in Ukraine).
“I don’t think anyone disputes that the MP was infiltrated thoroughly by agents, collaborators and cooperators, nor that every move the MP made had to be approved by the Soviet Government. I will leave it to you do choose which department of the Soviet government approved the “autocephaly” of the Metropolia.”
Doesn’t matter, anymore than it matters which diwan of the Sultan approved of Moscow’s autocephaly, its elevation to the patriarchate or the reunion of the Metropolitinate of Kiev to it.
The KGB had the perfect model that the Czarist “Spiritual Regulations” left them.
” And I’m sure it was just a coincidence that the Church of Japan was passed to the MP simultaneously with the grant of the tomos.”
Not at all-the negotiations of that were up front, and well known. Given that you haven’t explained the value of Japan over North America, no point has been made. I’ll make one: the bishop made by ROCOR to satisfy Fascist Japan’s dictates to the Church went over to Moscow after the war, and then to the OCA, then administrating Japan under Bp. Ireney of Tokyo, the future first autocephalous primate of North America.
“The fact remains that everybody and their brother violates OCA’s alleged “autocephaly” with complete abandon, including its mother church. ”
As I pointed out in the list above, they are doing the same in the “Mother Churches” so why not here?
The OCA goes on and consecrates its chrism and elects its primate without need of confirmation like the rest of the Mother Churches.
“If I were in the OCA, I’d spend more time getting my house in order.”
That too….although the OCA isn’t the only one who could use that.
As for “foreign bishops”, I expect that to become a bigger and bigger problem in these last spasms of the dying second American republic, as militant secularism chokes it. Moscow won’t be the one dealing with the heel of an atheist regime on its throat.
“. . . the problem is that Moscow again demanded a pledge of loyalty to the Soviet regime”
I rest my case. It is impossible to argue that the MP had some independence from the Soviet regime and could make its own decisions.
I do not dispute, and never have, that on paper, the MP technically recognizes the autocephaly of the OCA. It just flagrantly disregards it, as do many other jurisdicitons, by maintaining an autonomous church on the alleged canonical territory of the OCA.
There’s really no way to defend against that, Isa. In some respects, the OCA has earmarks of autocephaly. It consecrates its own chrism and has the technical recognition of Moscow an a few others. However, it lacks any semblance whatsoever of territorial exclusivity. Even its own tomos accepts foreign presences, large ones (GOAA, for example) in its territory, presences far beyond the parishes which Moscow retained in the tomos.
That really isn’t autocephaly. Or, at best, it is a very, very strange form of autocephaly where the local church is not recognized to have any power to exclude other local churches from its territory. It’s a damn mess, at best.
And, yes, you are right regarding America. But the wind is blowing toward ethnic differentiation, not away from it. This started with the demise of the Soviet Union. Much of the world was polarized between capitalist and socialist camps. Now that is gone and everyone is beginning to reassert their ethnic and religious identities. That is why you are seeing, for example, Romania calling for Romanians to come under their patriarchate. ROCOR will mind its own business, taking care of its people and proclaiming the Gospel to any Americans who have ears to hear. A good friend of mine started out in a ROCOR parish which was mostly converts, all English services.
At the end of the day, despite their rank dishonesty regarding their history, I have no beef against the OCA when they are not ranting against “foreign bishops” and claiming exclusivity. They are certainly Orthodox, certainly canonical, a mix of modern and traditional, but perhaps that is the best that many can manage immersed in the acid of an Enlightenment based culture.
“I rest my case. It is impossible to argue that the MP had some independence from the Soviet regime and could make its own decisions.”
The MP had no independence at least since Peter kept the office vacant, so you are several centuries too late to complain.
You still have to make the case that that matters. At all.
Should Georgia give up its ancient autocephaly-unjustly taken by the Czars in their Enlightened “Most Holy Governing Synod” after over a thousand years-just because the KGB stood by and let them keep it…and let the PoM refuse to accept it for decades? Should Poland and the Czech Lands and Slovakia give up their autocephaly granted by Moscow and instead fall back on that from the Phanar-and support the claims of Super-jurisdiction the Phanar embodied in those Tomoi? After all, the Poles, Czechs and Slovaks were free and independent of the Soviets when they received the Phanar’s Tomoi-like the Americans and Canadians (and Japanese) were when they received their Tomos from Moscow.
Should Patrtiarch Kirill accede to the demands of “Patriarch” Denysenuk and “Patriarch” Shevchuk as the KGB secured Ukraine for the Patriarchate of Moscow?
The Patriarch who signed the Act of Canonical Communion was, before the KGB got involved, under the jurisdiction of the Phanar, a fact EP Bartholomew threw in Pat. Alexei (of blessed memory)’s face. Are you back under Constantinople and haven’t noticed?
“It just flagrantly disregards it, as do many other jurisdicitons, by maintaining an autonomous church on the alleged canonical territory of the OCA.”
Estonoia, Moldova/Bessarabia,….
What autonomous Church is that? Not the Patriarchal parishes (dependent by the Tomos of the OCA), nor ROCOR. The Statute of the Russian ‘Orthodox Church grants autonomy to Estonia, Moldova and Latvia (all of which never joined ROCOR).
“There’s really no way to defend against that, Isa.”
Yet the PoM finds himself in that situation-you didn’t think HH was going to give the Phanar an “I told you so” to hang over the ROC, did you?
” It consecrates its own chrism and has the technical recognition of Moscow an a few others.”
More than enough-the Phanar doesn’t even allow the Churches it gives autocephaly to consecrate their own chrism. And now in the Czech Lands and Slovakia we see how technical the recognition of the Phanar can be.
The OCA also has more than a few others, and certainly more than ROCOR had when it signed the Act of Canonical Communion.
” it lacks any semblance whatsoever of territorial exclusivity.”
You mean like that the ROC-that is, the Romanian Orthoodox Church-exercised that made Met. Anastasy to abandon his see-and not because of Bolsheviks and the KGB?
How does Filaret, deposed by the ROC (Russian, this time), sit on the cathedra of St. Vladimir’s-or should I say Volodymyr’s?-in Kiev, a Cathedral erected by the Czars in answer to the call of Met. St. Philaret of Moscow, the Monastery of the Caves providing the bricks and people from all over the Russian Empire providing funds? How is the UAOC exist at all? How did the Cypriot from the Congo get to Tallin to tell the Estonian bred, born, baptized, persecuted (Met. Korneli did time for “religious propaganda”) ordained, consecrated and speaking to leave? How does the ROC (Romanian, that is)’s exarch of Bessarabia set up parishes through Ukraine and Russia all the way through the Baltic Republics, caring for the Romanian/Moldavan diaspora (about a million outside of Moldova) in the former Soviet Union? Then there are those of the Russsian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia inside Russia who did not agree with Act of Canonical Communion-those who did agreed in the former Soviet Republics had to get out or be absorbed by the Russian Orthodox Church inside Russia.
“Even its own tomos accepts foreign presences, large ones (GOAA, for example) in its territory, presences far beyond the parishes which Moscow retained in the tomos.”
It’s Tomos is not unique in that-the Phanar’s New Lands takes up half of the Church of Greece, for instance. In the case of the OCA Tomos, it faced the same situation the Estonian Pat. of Moscow Alexei II faced. A different tack was tried in Ukraine, with a far different result. If the so called UAOC and KP can get their act together, they might end up like their diaspora UOCC and UOCUSA-whether Moscow accepts it or not.
“for the time being preserve their de facto” foreign presence: doesn’t preclude “ranting” as you put it, and neither has the OCA in season and out of season refrained from it.
“That really isn’t autocephaly. ”
So says the canonical tradition of bishops deprived of episcopal function, self constituted as a synod outside its canonical boundaries over five continents without, until recently, any canonical oversight of its primate.
I’ll stick to the canons that the Fathers set up.
“Or, at best, it is a very, very strange form of autocephaly where the local church is not recognized to have any power to exclude other local churches from its territory. It’s a damn mess, at best.”
Besides a mischaracterization. And even the mischaracterization is not stranger than the example of the Cyprus Church, upon which you (incorrectly) try to appropriate as a canonical basis of existence.
“That is why you are seeing, for example, Romania calling for Romanians to come under their patriarchate.”
That’s nothing new, as Abp. Anastasy could tell you. The Romanian Episcopate in North America came under the OCA, and made it known it is staying there. The Romanians had better luck at the European Court of Justice against Moscow over Moldova.
An old Russian, whose family dated back to the days of Abp. St. Tikhon in North America, once told me “I told care about what language my grandparents prayed in. I’m worried about what language my grandchildren will pray in.”
” despite their rank dishonesty regarding their history”
Physician, as always, heal thyself.
“I have no beef against the OCA when they are not ranting against “foreign bishops” and claiming exclusivity.”
You have been ranting about them not being against foreign bishops (no quotation marks) and asserting their exclusivity.
“a mix of modern and traditional”
Modern-like the operatic melodies instead of chant, Westernized iconography and the Latin seminary system?
“immersed in the acid of an Enlightenment based culture.”
St. Tikhon first ditched the Petrine Spiritual Regulations in North America, before Russia slipped into the Enligthened acid bath of the Bolsheviks. Russia has begun to heal, God grant the Americans do before they burn as well.
“‘immersed in the acid of an Enlightenment based culture.’
St. Tikhon first ditched the Petrine Spiritual Regulations in North America, before Russia slipped into the Enligthened acid bath of the Bolsheviks. Russia has begun to heal, God grant the Americans do before they burn as well.”
The above quoted was the only worthwhile part of your last post. The rest was irrelevant drivel which did not refute anything I said but used the tired Roman Catholic style apologetic of assembling an array of historical exceptions to defend a particularly outrageous anomaly.
I started to say that I would have more respect for your arguments if you weren’t a hopeless hypocrite for being in AOCNA while defending the alleged autocephaly of the OCA. But I stopped myself. It just isn’t true. [LOL]
Edward writes:
Peter, that was not a conversation, it was a lecture. You again either ignored or misrepresented or evaded most things I have said. Instead, you just wrote about what you wanted to write about.
1. You write: “you attack me…”
Where exactly did I attack you? I said that you had the omniscience to know whose piety was fake. How did I know this? Because you said so: “I also hate the fake so-called traditionalism of ROCOR types,” and it is pretty clear to whom you were directing your “poseurs” comment. Same for my saying that you knew who was canonical — it is all above for you to read in your own posts.
2. You write regarding your comment on Stankovich: “I don’t think I saw your name anywhere in there.”
Then why did it have any place in your response to me if you didn’t mean it to include me? I am one of two self-identified ROCOR people that you regularly single out for obloquy, and you wrote this: “because [Stankovich] and others don’t meet ROCOR faux rigorness then he’s a modernist and his Orthodoxy dismissed. Glad to say you are not the arbitrators of all thing Orthodox.”
So, Peter, who exactly did you mean by “you” when you are citing ROCOR and when you used my name no fewer than three times in that post, making it clear you were talking to me? Had you really not meant to include me, your last post would have included an apology, not an evasion like “I don’t think I saw your name anywhere in there.”
3. You write: “Well Edward I am glad you know the heart of the Ecumenical Patriarch.”
Try to find anything in what I wrote that says or implies anything about Patriarch Bartholomew’s heart. When I criticize an institution like the EP for political actions, that is exactly what I criticize: actions. For all I know, he is an extraordinarily pious and even saintly man. Someone can have a good heart and engage in wrong actions, so criticizing actions does not imply a knowledge of the heart. This is Spiritual Life 101 (and Logic 101) and you should know that. By contrast, when you, Peter, label someone else’s traditionalism and piety as “fake” and label them as “poseurs,” you are most definitely claiming to know their heart.
4. You write: Further, I am surprised that you make ROCOR so weak minded that the big bad OC Greeks can manipulate and mentally alter the brains and motivations of ROCOR to make them extreme. Basically you are saying to me: “Peter, you are correct that ROCOR is extreme, but it was those darn OC Greeks that made us extreme.”
Where to start? I did not say or imply that the ROCOR is extreme, because I do not think it is, although there were some positions they took in the past — at least informally — that I did not agree with and felt were too extreme (i.e. some priests forbidding intercommunion by their faithful). I certainly did not say that OC Greeks “can manipulate and mentally alter the brains and motivations of the ROCOR…”
You know exactly what I said, because you yourself quoted it above: I wrote: “The truth is that there was a small but very vocal strain within the ROCOR that had been heavily influenced by Greek Old Calendarist thinking.” Rather different, isn’t it? And very true, I would add, and anyone who knows anything about the ROCOR would agree. I also said that everyone with that mindset about ecclesiology left the ROCOR after the reunification (indeed, if you embrace that ecclesiology, you would have no choice but to leave) and that it is estimated to have been, at most, 10% of the ROCOR clergy and faithful — pretty much what I meant by a “small but very vocal strain.”
5. You write: “In fact, Bishop Tikhon does the same thing you just did. He tell us about his Greek girlfriend ever time I catch his Hatred for Greeks showing.”
I cannot speak for His Grace, but I highly doubt that he has a “Hatred for Greeks” (love the capitalization, BTW — makes it seem more ominous). But for the sake of argument, let’s take your example at face value, and assume that you are correct that the only thing that His Grace has to show to defend against your accusation that he has a “Hatred for Greeks” is that he once had a Greek girlfriend. This is basically accusing him of being a version of the proverbial guy who says, “I had a black acquaintance/coworker once that I got along with, so I can’t be racist.”
Leaving aside the whole question of whether you have the ability to see into our hearts to determine that we have hatred (or in my case, you charitably say that I have only “veered” in the direction of hatred — whatever that means), how does that begin to compare to the story that I told you, only to have you ignore it and write it off and repeat your allegation of “hatred” on my part?
I talked about wonderful relationships with numerous Greek priests over the course of decades, a deep love for the particular genius of the modern Greek spiritual and theological tradition, years in a Greek parish with my family where we were deeply involved and forged close relationships and where I gladly entrusted my own precious children to the priest, the Greek school teachers and youth leaders to influence their spiritual development (heck, they were so fooled by how well I hid my “hatred” that they had me teach Sunday School to their own kids), a pointed and conscious decision to regularly attend Greek parishes even when I was a member of a ROCOR parish because I wanted to be connected with those people and that world, and rows with my ROCOR priests when they wouldn’t give their blessing to allow me to commune at Greek parishes.
Seriously, Peter, you read all of that, and you will still accuse me of being motivated by hatred of Greeks, and flippantly compare it to someone citing a Greek girlfriend in high school? You are incapable of allowing me an objective criticism of certain actions of the EP (or for that matter, my criticism of the ecclesiology of Greek Old Calendarists) on the merits, and must rather insist on accusing me of things that are rather vile?
Finally, I am not unaware of the things you cite about Christianity in Turkey. I have read many of them already, but I thank you for making sure that I had seen them. I have also read things that indicate that the vast majority of Turks becoming Christians are becoming Protestants, not Orthodox. My statement about the EP centers around the contrast between the huge task at hand in Turkey and the disproportionate emphasis that the EP instead places on trying to win ecclesiastical power struggles all over the globe instead (in the article that George wrote that kicked off this thread, he does a nice job of summarizing some of the problems with the EP including its “unsubtle hegemonic claims” — perhaps you should light into him for a change even though he isn’t in the ROCOR?)
My observation were statements of fact and clear-eyed observations. Criticisms, yes. But no hate involved, no matter how you want to try to twist it. In fact, it is you in this thread who have written about the “heresy of modernism” and gone on at length about Freemasonry in the EP’s history and all of that — I’ve not said anything that comes close to that.
__________________________
Ok let’s take them one at a time.
1. You write: “you attack me…”
Where exactly did I attack you? I said that you had the omniscience to know whose piety was fake. How did I know this? Because you said so: “I also hate the fake so-called traditionalism of ROCOR types,” and it is pretty clear to whom you were directing your “poseurs” comment. Same for my saying that you knew who was canonical — it is all above for you to read in your own posts.
RESPONSE: Yes. Your whole response was an attack. I corrected you. You did not like me correcting you with facts, so you attacked me again. You see you stated that I had the omniscience to know whose piety was fake.. Wells that’s an attack. So I stated to you that I am glad to know the heart of the EP.. Neither you know or I know the EP’s heart but you attack the man and the office and you know nothing. I was trying to be nice, but you are just being rude and stubborn in not accepting the failures in your Church. I accept the failures in my church and try to correct them the best I can. Can you say that? Can you DO THAT? Or does your church have no errors because its ROCOR?
2. You write regarding your comment on Stankovich: “I don’t think I saw your name anywhere in there.”
Then why did it have any place in your response to me if you didn’t mean it to include me? I am one of two self-identified ROCOR people that you regularly single out for obloquy, and you wrote this: “because [Stankovich] and others don’t meet ROCOR faux rigorness then he’s a modernist and his Orthodoxy dismissed. Glad to say you are not the arbitrators of all thing Orthodox.”
So, Peter, who exactly did you mean by “you” when you are citing ROCOR and when you used my name no fewer than three times in that post, making it clear you were talking to me? Had you really not meant to include me, your last post would have included an apology, not an evasion like “I don’t think I saw your name anywhere in there.”
RESPONSE: No I did not I meant Misha and others like minded like them. If I had meant you I would have addressed you directly or indirectly. I don’t have and never have a problem addressing people directly. Your name was not there. Please check again. I will wait for your apology on that one.
3. You write: “Well Edward I am glad you know the heart of the Ecumenical Patriarch.”
Try to find anything in what I wrote that says or implies anything about Patriarch Bartholomew’s heart. When I criticize an institution like the EP for political actions, that is exactly what I criticize: actions. For all I know, he is an extraordinarily pious and even saintly man. Someone can have a good heart and engage in wrong actions, so criticizing actions does not imply a knowledge of the heart. This is Spiritual Life 101 (and Logic 101) and you should know that. By contrast, when you, Peter, label someone else’s traditionalism and piety as “fake” and label them as “poseurs,” you are most definitely claiming to know their heart.
RESPONSE: Edward please don’t bear false witness it is very unbecoming of you. When you state that you have a problem with the EP political actions THAT does come from the heart! You are saying that YOU KNOW the EP’s hear and that it is false, mistaken, misguided and the great and pious Edward knows better. Really? Again, are you on the Synod? Are you privu to all the information he has? Further, you have cited and supported the Athonite Monks that have directly attacj the EP for his Ecumenism and his lack of true Orthodoxy. If that’s NOT attacking the EP and the very HEART of his beliefs then I do not know what is. This is the MOST disingenuous thing you have stated.
4. You write: Further, I am surprised that you make ROCOR so weak minded that the big bad OC Greeks can manipulate and mentally alter the brains and motivations of ROCOR to make them extreme. Basically you are saying to me: “Peter, you are correct that ROCOR is extreme, but it was those darn OC Greeks that made us extreme.”
Where to start? I did not say or imply that the ROCOR is extreme, because I do not think it is, although there were some positions they took in the past — at least informally — that I did not agree with and felt were too extreme (i.e. some priests forbidding intercommunion by their faithful). I certainly did not say that OC Greeks “can manipulate and mentally alter the brains and motivations of the ROCOR…”
You know exactly what I said, because you yourself quoted it above: I wrote: “The truth is that there was a small but very vocal strain within the ROCOR that had been heavily influenced by Greek Old Calendarist thinking.” Rather different, isn’t it? And very true, I would add, and anyone who knows anything about the ROCOR would agree. I also said that everyone with that mindset about ecclesiology left the ROCOR after the reunification (indeed, if you embrace that ecclesiology, you would have no choice but to leave) and that it is estimated to have been, at most, 10% of the ROCOR clergy and faithful — pretty much what I meant by a “small but very vocal strain.”
RESPONSE: Edward you are now digging an even bigger hole for yourself! So basically now a small brain washed contingent within ROCOR that was brainwashed by the OC Greeks was able to manipulate the LARGER portion of ROCOR. I think you better stop because you are making it worse not better for your position on this.
How about this: ROCOR has its OWN mind and that mind hated the Ecumenism of so-called “World Orthodoxy” just like the OC Greeks hated the ecumenism of World Orthodoxy so THEY BOTH LEFT, AND BOTH WERE WRONG! However, ROCOR came back so ROCOR is good again while my OC Greek are still off the reservation. Kudos to ROCOR for coming back .May they never leave again because we are stronger together then apart. So stop covering for ROCOR. They messed up. Own up to it. I own up to the missteps in my Church. No shame in this.
5. You write: “In fact, Bishop Tikhon does the same thing you just did. He tell us about his Greek girlfriend ever time I catch his Hatred for Greeks showing.”
I cannot speak for His Grace, but I highly doubt that he has a “Hatred for Greeks” (love the capitalization, BTW — makes it seem more ominous). But for the sake of argument, let’s take your example at face value, and assume that you are correct that the only thing that His Grace has to show to defend against your accusation that he has a “Hatred for Greeks” is that he once had a Greek girlfriend. This is basically accusing him of being a version of the proverbial guy who says, “I had a black acquaintance/coworker once that I got along with, so I can’t be racist.”
RESPONSE: Yes he is. End of story.
So Edward you have a choice. You can live a life hating and mistrusting Greeks and whoever else, IDK, like Misha and Bishop Tikhon, or you can live a life rich in the Holy Spirit. That’s NOT a lecture because I need to do that as well. I am a fallen sinner just like everybody else. Further like I said I may be loyal and obediant to mu jurisdiction, but I know the BS going on inside it. do you know the BS inside your jurisdiction. If not never learn about it. If so, work to change it as best you can.
Like I said before, I bid you peace.
Peter A. Papoutsis
Peter, I’m sorry but you seem to see hatred for Greeks all over the place. I don’t know Bishop Tikhon. Maybe he really does hate Greeks. I don’t see it. I may dislike His Grace’s politics, but as far as I know, his Orthodoxy is sound.
I won’t even go into the fact that not only is my current spiritual father a Greek priest; also a past spiritual father was as well.
I actually like some Greek practices, serving Matins in the morning, the lowback priests vestment, I certainly prefer Byzantine Chant to the Russian Operatic pieces; that’s why I like the Serbian and Bulgarian churches.I do, however, like the Russian and Serbian way of serving, i.e., closing the Royal Gates and Altar Curtain at the proper times. Like I said, just one man’s opinion
Not all over the place, just one place.
As an Arab Orthodox in Chicago, I am doubly proud an Arab Metropolitan issued this in Chicago.
But to nit-pick:
“As anybody who studies history knows, these spurious canons from the fourth Ecumenical Council were quickly invalidated by the Pope within weeks of their publication and never referenced again.”
Besides the danger of giving Old Rome a precedent of being able by itself to invalidate anything, history has preserved the letter of Pope St. Leo of Old Rome whining to the Empress that even his own suffragans in Illyria were following canon 28, as the Patriarchate of Constantinople had become established fact.
The novel interpretations thereof by the Phanar of just barely a century are belied by the actions of the Patriarch of Antioch a few decades after Chalcedon exercised his jurisdiction over Iberia to consecrate an autocephalous Catholicos and 12 bishops for Georgia, SS. Cyril and Methodius, although sent by New Rome, got permission from Old Rome (Greater Moravia falling under its jurisdiction) to found the Slavic Church in the Czech Lands and Slovakia, denying both the Phanar’s claim to jurisdiction for Constantinople for all lands outside the canonical boundaries of the other Churches and monopoly of mission to the top ranking primate in the diptychs.
I just spent 3 weeks in the hospital and was released two days ago with a PIC line and pump continually infusing peripenicillian 24/7 for the next 21 days. Eventually, I will return for a colonoscopy & surgery. Blessed is God who kept me safe through numerous invasive and extremely painful procedures! But the most interesting thing, is that in this major award-winning research institution, I never crossed paths with one Orthodox Christian. When I was admitted, I told them I belonged to the Greek Orthodox parish, and he would be contacted. On the several occasions a “minister” came to my room, I was told I was listed by the hospital as “Christian – OTHER.” We chatted about “vague” matters of health.
By rights, I was entitled to a daily one hour visit from the “service animal” – a beautiful red Irish Setter who climbed on the bed and lay with me; “aromatherapy,” which gives me migraines; “music therapy” with a woman playing new age” crap and alternately letting me play the blues.” Such was meeting my “spiritual needs.”
One of the docs gave me a “weathered” set of scrubs & and a gown, and in the evening, IV pole in tow, I got in my exercise walking the halls, chatting with people also walking, stepping into patient rooms, and sitting in the patient lounge, speaking of the Gospel and the Salvation of Jesus Christ. It was surprising yet unsurprising at the number of people who had heard of the Orthodox Church (beyond “festivals”) and the Truth it held as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. And I told them, “I’m no priest or minister, just a patient like you!” “Where can we learn about these things?” And folks, I immediately thought of this site and its “competition and felt ashamed. The lack of charity; the love of gossip; the mockery of the Hierarchy and anointed of God; the love of scandal; the love of anonymous accusations without evidence or corroboration. “Give me your email of mailing address & I would be happy to send you something.” To date, I am in the middle of sending information to 98 people.
I grant, I was in a “captured” environment with a “voluntary” but captured audience, but perhaps before the the next time you sit down to write one of your “golden masterpieces,” you will consider:
If but two receive my message and are so interested, Blessed is our God!
Perastika!
Please feel better Michael. I know you have gone through alot. My prayers are always with you.
Peter A. Papoutsis
Michael Stankovich:
Je suis heureux vous avez retourné et je l’espère vous sentez mieux.
May the Lord bless His servant Michael and restore him to health of body and soul, mind and spirit.
Prayers are going forth for you from our household.
Splendid, your witness to the Faith during that trying time!
You have tossed a barb or two yourself here…..;-)
Sigh! When I first heard of the Episcopal Assembly I was joyed that a miracle was in the making. Finally the Holy Spirit was moving our bishops towards a unity in His likeness.
It would seem that the miracle is now on hold as our bishops are behaving like the successors to the apostles that they are.
Mark 10:44-45
Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”