Source: Нескучный сад
Posted on Orthodox Forum. Slightly edited machine translation.
What’s up? The priest-in-charge of the Cathedral of the American Church compared the Russian Church to inquisitors
The website of the Protection [Pokrov] Cathedral in New York (Orthodox Church in America ) on Dormition Day distanced itself from Russia’s “inquisitorial harassment” and “xenophobia” and the Russian Orthodox Church. The text of the statement, comment of the NY priest and the context:
The official website of the Cathedral of the Diocese of New York and New Jersey (Orthodox Church in America), on August 28 , the Dormition of Blessed Virgin Mary, published the following statement of the priest-in-charge:
“Regarding our Cathedral, the Church in Russia, and the Russian GovernmentThe NYC Cathedral of the Holy Virgin Protection, a parish of the autocephalous (self-governed) Orthodox Church in America, is completely independent from the Church in Russia (Moscow Patriarchate), its political actions and statements, and its inquisition-like persecutions and xenophobia in concert with the Russian government’s promulgation of draconian laws limiting freedom of speech and civil rights of its citizens. Archimandrite Christopher Calin, Dean 08/28/13′ (English original)
Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Pimen Krutitskii and Kolomna (Izvekov) presents the Tomos of autocephaly of the American Orthodox Church bishop and the Sitka Alaska Theodosius (Lazor). Moscow, 1970 Photo from www.orthodoxhistory.org
The Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate’s had no comment on the American priest’s demarche, citing the fact that New York priests should be more aware of the causes of such statements .
Archpriest George Roschin , a cleric of St. Nicholas Patriarchal Cathedral of New York ( Representation of the Moscow Patriarchate in the United States of America), was surprised by the statement not less than his Moscow counterparts.
Father George, what is the meaning of Archimandrite Christopher’s statement and how does one relate to it ?
After reading this post on the official website of the parish, I ask myself the same questions. What prompted the Archimandrite’s declaration, and most importantly to place it on the official site? It is unclear whether this is the official position of OCA or Father Christopher’s private opinion.
It is clear that in American society there is a debate about some of the legislative initiatives of the Russian Federation, but we know that the Russian Orthodox Church is separated from the state. The American Church is also well aware of this but we know why such statements raise more questions and perplexities rather than the desire to join the discussion. I still hope that some further clarification regarding this statement will still be given.
That is not to say that it was made by an eccentric priest —well known throughout the city— to whose unusual statements everyone is accustomed?
Of course not. This statement accuses the Russian Church. But the Church speaks from the standpoint of Scripture, tradition and the Church’s teaching on the moral imperative that we shared with the American Church . From this point of view, accusing the Church of xenophobia and relationships with the state is a little illogical. The only thing that comes to mind as an explanation of what happened it’s a lack of awareness about what is happening in Russia, including in the area of church-state relations.
But if there is no such awareness, then perhaps one has to be careful in evaluations and, as a minimum, first get to know the opinion of the Russian Church on the issue. Unfortunately, no one asked us for clarifications . We do not even know, precisely because of what event Father Christopher decided to speak out.
A possible explanation
At the time of this writing, the representatives of Pokrov Cathedral were unavailable for comment , so it is not clear in the end which law is draconian a ban on adoptions by Americans Russian orphans (so-called “the Dima Yakovlev law” ) or the law banning the promotion of homosexuality . Most probably , the second because it is a statement about freedom of speech . Indirect evidence in favor of this and the fact that on August 25 in San Francisco gay activists held a demonstration at the Cathedral of the Moscow Patriarchate. The statement may be a reaction to it.
Recall that last week, in front of St. Nicholas Patriarchal Cathedral in San Francisco there was a protest of the local LGBT community. The protesters complained about Russian law prohibiting propaganda of homosexuality among minors. Hearing of this action earlier, two archpastors of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia arrived at the cathedral before thebeginning of the liturgy: Archbishop Kiril, administrator ROCOR’s San Francisco and the Western American Diocese and Bishop Feodosiy of Seattle, ROCOR’s Vicar of the Western American Diocese. To comfort and support the bishops brought believers the ark with a particle of the holy relics from St. John of Shanghai Cathedral in San Francisco. Archbishop Cyril and Bishop Theodosius , together with the parishioners and clergy of the church prayed and received Holy Communion.
Closer to or further from Moscow?
The paradox lies in the fact that it was the Russian Orthodox Church from which the Father Archimandrite so strongly distanced himself gave autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in America in 1970 , which is not recognized by the churches of Constantinople , Alexandria , Antioch , Jerusalem , Romania , Cyprus , Albania. For them, the Orthodox Church of America -is just a self-governing part of the Russian Orthodox Church.
In the Orthodox Church in America, there are different tendencies . One part of the clergy wants closer relations with Moscow , while on the other hand another distancing itself from ties with Russia and underlines the uniqueness of American Orthodoxy.
As an example, recall the episode in October 2008 . Then Bishop Hilarion of Vienna (now Metropolitan of Volokolamsk, head of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate ) was considered as a possible candidate to the chair the widowed Orthodox Church in America. One of the statements , for example, said: “Bishop Hilarion would be a perfect candidate … If Moscow will let him administer us, what can be better to strengthen the links between the different Russian churches and even different jurisdictions in America? ‘.
One of the signed petitions in support of the candidacy of Bishop Hilarion was recently the ordained Bishop Jonah (Paffhausen) , in the end he became Metropolitan of All America and Canada.
Later, Metropolitan Jonah offered to change the canonical status of the Orthodox Church in America, with an autocephalous to autonomous within the Russian Orthodox Church. This tendency, along with a certain authoritarian decision was one of the reasons for the resignation [departure] of the primate on 7 July 2012 at the request of the members of the Synod of the OCA . As Archpriest Leonid Kishkovsky said in a comment to “Neskuchny Sad (Garden},” : ” It did not correspond to the self-dentity of the majority of our faithful , many of whom do not have any relation to the Russian community — who are Romanians , Albanians or converts from Protestant denominations .”
I am a murderophobe, thiefophope,adultryophobe,lieophobe,and a homophobe according to the gay definition. Such mental social disorders are deemed quite evil, and should be punished strenuously. This ,of course is totally dependent upon what the sodomites and their gommorahite buddies feel like today. Just put a phobia on child birth and it will become a punishable crime .
My point being is there is no such thing as homophobia, Some psychiatrist invented the mental disorder to give some scientific,(sic) credibility to the inherent evil of Christianity and it’s teachings. They really have a problem with people who have a good and honest heart, which brings forth Holy fruits in due season.
Lo and behold, I see the statement is, in fact, there on the Cathedral’s website. Another Dean run amuck? Is this common on the east coast? No mention of Christ or the Gospel. No brotherly love. Just a political statement.
lxc
Wow, Fr. George’s remarks are interesting. He talks about the OCA’s autocephaly, the recruitment of Met. Hilarion of Volokolamsk (then Bishop Hilarion) and one (of a few) divisions within the OCA.
This is not a positive development. For the OCA to be perceived as thumbing their nose at Moscow puts their status in further jeopardy. Only Moscow and the churches of the former Eastern block recognize the OCA’s autocephaly. But, to each his own. The rest of Orthodoxy carries on. God bless the upright within the OCA and God save all, righteous and strayed alike.
Misha–Did you read the last paragraph? Where Father George Roschin confirms the “stinkbomb” letter?
“Later, Metropolitan Jonah offered to change the canonical status of the Orthodox Church in America, with an autocephalous to autonomous within the Russian Orthodox Church. This tendency, along with a certain authoritarian decision was one of the reasons for the resignation [departure] of the primate on 7 July 2012 at the request of the members of the Synod of the OCA .”
Carl,
I try not to get in the middle of the Met. Jonah controversy. Personally I have mixed feelings about him. On the one hand, I believe he is a sincere pious hierarch who has always done his best as his conscience dictated. On the other, I have to admit he showed some signs of being intemperate even when, on the whole, he may have been right about this or that issue.
In the end, I suppose, unless he himself wishes to make an issue of his treatment at the hands of the OCA synod, I don’t have a dog in the fight. Now, that being said, if I were in the OCA I might very well not want to forget what has happened since it is symptomatic of some deeper issues within. But it’s none of my business.
Regarding his alleged offering to end the autocephaly of the OCA and return to an autonomous status within the ROC, I am skeptical of any such effort. The reason, simply put, is the cultural difference between the two entities. The Metropolia was top heavy with CarpathoRus from the end of the 19th century forward. Now, it is predominantly convert (ca. 60%). I love Ukrainians and I love converts but both groups (regarding ecclesiology and orthopraxis) tend to be cat people and Russians tend to be dog people. Recall that before the autocephaly of the OCA was granted, the Metropolia had not been in communion with Moscow for several decades, nor had they managed to maintain unity with the Free Russian Church, although they did for certain short periods.
You see, in addition to historical issues, during the existence of the Soviet Union, at least early on, the Metropolia became more sympathetic to the Soviets because they encouraged a certain degree of Ukrainian cultural nationalism and gave the Ukrainians their own socialist republic within the Union. Now, as we all know now, the Soviets created a man made famine in the Ukraine (the “Holodomor”, “killing by hunger”), which killed a few million Ukrainians. Nonetheless, this mass murder was whitewashed in the West by western liberal newsmen. The Metropolia would have joined with an NKVD (predecessor to the KGB) dominated church if it had allowed them autonomy in the thirties or forties.
Ethnicity is nothing to be sneezed at. The worldview of the CarpathoRus prevailed throughout the Metropolia and OCA. Part of this worldview had as a staple resentment of Great Russian imperialism both politically and religiously. I have some good friends in the OCA, but they see things quite differently from those in ROCOR and the ROC. The OCA is not Russian, never has been, doubt if it ever will be. That’s neither good nor bad, just the way I see it.
This is just a continuation of the fifth that started in Boston at the oca church and the gay lovers there.
Well it’s down now.
Perhaps a resignation or removal is in order. Isn’t this the kind of imprudent talk and “unilateral” action that ++JONAH was excoriated for?
lxc
Archimandrite Christopher is the most fashion forward monastic I have encountered.
His FaceBook page is extremely active. Don’t just stand there, let’s get to it, strike a pose, there’s nothing to it..
I will praise you seven times a day and update my social media twice as much thereof.
Perhaps it is time for a transfer so the good Archimandrite can reconnect with nature at some small parish in Upstate N.Y.
http://byztex.blogspot.com/2013/09/praying-in-anglican-tradition-at-oca.html
Can someone explain this to me, Im not sure I understand?
Yes, Cramer:
There is Orthodoxy and there is neo-Orthodoxy. The above incident is neo-Orthodoxy in action. Canon law prohibits Orthodox from praying with non-Orthodox. Of course, this would not prohibit Orthodox praying in their own churches where non-Orthodox were visiting. However, praying a non-Orthodox rite with non-Orthodox visitors, according to canon law, would earn the participating Orthodox clergy deposition. Same is true for Met. Jonah’s speech to the ACNA earlier where he led them all in prayer on their territory.
Now, among the neo-Orthodox, these canons seem to be interpreted as prohibiting concelebration of the liturgy and intercommunion (this I got from an OCA priest). But this is simply a lie. That is not what the canons say. But such total separation as the canons demand is seen as too unmodern and aloof for those who judge Tradition by modern norms rather than modern norms by Tradition.
If you want real Orthodoxy, find an old calendar Orthodox church: Russian, Greek, Serbian, etc.
Yes, and when I am Orthodox I shan’t pray with my wife, 5 children, 2 sons-in-law, daughter-in-law, and 12 grandchildren around my table (and their tables)?
Rubbish.
Yes Tim, contempt for Orthodoxy is rubbish. Being as how you are head of the family and it is your home, I can’t see why it would apply to you at home any more than it would apply to Orthodox who are visited by non-Orthodox in their own churches. But if you want to have a hissy, be my guest. Regardless, it does not change the objective reality of canon law which clearly prescribes excommunication and/or deposition for praying with heretics and schismatics. The fact that it is widely ignored reflects badly on modernist Orthodoxy, not the Fathers.
I think, Misha, is all you do by outlining the canonical prohibitions against praying with my non-Orthodox wife, is berate the Canons.
As for the reflection, it is upon the weaknesses of the Canons, not a modern priest who recognizes the advent of the passenger ship changed the world, let alone an airplane.
The Canons have lots of flaws; it doesn’t take a strict Canonist to point them out either!
I will only apologize for my poor attendance; not my perspective.
Regards.
The canons do not have flaws. However, they were approved at a different time in a different place. We have to put the canons in their historical context.
Of course, a non-Orthodox can pray with the members of his family. The canons deal with liturgical prayer and worship, not saying grace before a family meal. That means that if I attended the parish of my Methodist minister cousin, I would not con-celebrate with him or help him lead the service. However, when I go to his home for dinner, the canons do not mean that I can bow my head and pray with him when he says grace before dinner.
Well, “hissy” would not be any word I would apply to myself.
We are surrounded by our children’s households. Indeed, of our 12 grandchildren, 9 live within walking distance of us, and 3 are only 30 miles away. It is common for us to eat together at one another’s homes 2 or 3 times a week. We have all 22 of us together at table at one time usually once or twice a month.
My youngest son, who has a wife and 4 children himself, has become an Orthodox catechumen with me. Indeed, we were formally received together as catechumens today at Divine Liturgy.
We raised all our children as Christians. They continue in the faith. Some of their children are now adults and are devout Christians in turn. When I am at their houses, I join their prayers, without reservation, and will always do so.
Not that I’m going to change this practice, but I still would be interested in other opinions!
This is love for Christ, and the Orthodox Church, not “contempt” as you would have it. Indeed, the greatest joy is my son’s commitment, which has arisen out of my long “fellow-travelling” with the Orthodox; he has encouraged me to put my spirit where my mouth has been, thanks be to God.
Tim, I enjoy reading your contributions here, fwiw. They’re refreshing. You sound like a genuinely decent guy to me — relatively speaking, I mean, and also with no intent to flatter you — particularly in this sorry joint, with its plethora of anonymous mischief makers, libel-mongers, American-stye pharisees manqué, Der Stürmer-inspired “cartoonists,” various sub-species of delusional crackers and so forth. Many comic and a few, alas, not-so-comic types here, but you strike me as a regular, real guy. For a lawyer, I mean! (Just kiddin’.) I think you, Dr. Stankovich, Brian, Daniel, Gail, and, if we’re really lucky, His Grace, should get together sometime in real life. Aren’t we all on the Left Coast? Maybe some others unknown to me who live out west, too, might be interested.
Gotta say I’m increasingly bemused by Misha’s stuff. After much scratching of my head, I’ve decided they must comprise some sort of online performance art audition. An often riveting one it is, too. My guess is that Misha’s cyber-persona is designed, not without a certain analogy to a female impersonator’s “art,” as a camp send-up of a rather distasteful spiritual hybrid: petty, hypocritical Pharisee/blind-as-a-bat, ignorant scribe/sophist-lawyer. George’s pioneering efforts in the genre (sans the lawyer leg of the trifecta) have clearly inspired him, though a marked anxiety of influence seems operative at times. Which is perfectly understandable. It’s all as poshlost as hell, too often, but then this whole site often reeks of that. I’ve come to believe that vividly illustrating a certain argot and ethos of poshlost pseudo-ecclesiese is the real meta-function of this blog. Whether consciously so, or not — who could say? It remains most instructive, regardless, and I’m grateful, at least for that aspect of it.
I especially admire how Misha’s creator riffs on the bad example of some 1st-century CE Pharisees and their tragic blindness to the heart of Torah, what with their pre-Jesuit, post-sophist casuistries featuring the oral law tradition, an indispensable component in their toolkit for occulting the Holy Spirit — a pathology with which our Lord had to cope constantly, as we know. Misha’s puppeteer pulls off his burlesque using orthodox tradition and its canon law, degrading the simplicity and Power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, just as they dim the inner, Living core of the Torah with their pettiness, misplaced malice and hypocrisy. I think it’s an evocative and even brilliant cyber-conceit on his part (again, with all due respect to our illustrious host’s trail blazing here).
Unless he’s “sincere,” banally prosaic and just the ventriloquist of his own heart, I mean . . . In which sad case, my advice is to ignore this Misha and his petty, blinkered, bigoted bitching completely. Although I’m merely a potential convert to Orthodoxy myself (in a many decades-long catechumenate) — from the Roman Catholic Church — and therefore not formally Orthodox in the official, bureaucratic sense and so, arguably, not a fit discerner of anything Orthodox, maybe . . . still, I’ve been around the block once or twice. This Misha character taken neat triggers some alarms and flashing red lights in me prima facie. And his sort of “phronema” is one I’m wary of. Even I know that a guy who loudly trumpets his obeisance to tradition and canon law from one side of his face while repulsively reviling the Ecumenical Patriarch from the other is someone to be pitied, at best. And as if that weren’t vile enough, in one of his most recent excretions here on George’s blog, this bozo informs us that he dreams of a violent overthrow of Constitutional republican government in the United States, carried out via a fascist military coup, to be followed, presumably, by a dictatorship or autocracy. Again, unless this is all merely brilliant parody, in which case, well . . . Überkudos from me — investigation of this gentleman for malignant subversion if not outright treason seems called for. And this from a “lawyer,” yet!
Ironically enough, however, it was this very Misha who turned me on to a fascinating, and in places rather sadly self-revealing, interview with one Archpriest Andrew Phillips, of the ROCOR exarchate, Chichester, England. I say ironically, because in it the good Father refracts some of Fr. Alexander Schmemann’s observations on tendencies to spiritual pathology lamentably visible in some of the beleaguered progeny of the MP abroad. In this interview, he refracts the richer, more nuanced point of view of the late and very great Fr. Alexander Schmemann, as revealed in his recently published diaries. Fr. Phillips caricatures somewhat ineptly Fr. Schmemann’s impressionism here and there in this interview — as he does, quite a bit more culpably, the great man himself. (A man whom Misha too demeans, although not, I admit, as passionately as he does the EP, where he’s goaded on by obvious sectarian prejudice and ideological fervor. But still, it’s hard not to hear a certain plebeian crassness and transparent ressentiment, perhaps aroused by a gnawing sense of being in the temporal proximity of a vastly superior, hugely accomplished and genuinely aristocratic human being — a profoundly disgusting trait, typical of many of the ethnically Russian Bolshies, incidentally, who similarly chose to see only the worst of the aristocracy, . . . and of a few other sorts at that time.)
Congratulations on your entrance into the life of the Orthodox Church. At its best, it’s the best, IMHO. This blog — with notable exceptions that may only prove the rule — is not at all representative of that, it seems to me. But I’m sure you’ve already worked that out for yourself.
OK, so lemme get this straight: because several of us don’t (can’t) believe that a man sodomizing another man is equal to heterosexual monogamy, we’re “Pharisees”? REALLY?
As for the “late, great, Fr Schmemann” whom you seem to idolize, he had no use for homosexuals in the clergy and I know for a fact that he resented them in the episcopate.
George, I pass on responding to these irrational non sequiturs, which seem to bubble up incessantly out of the miasma of your morbid obsessions, only to pop here on Monomakhos (and stink). I don’t care to enable you, out of what I like to think of as a certain therapeutic sensitivity. Call it tough love, if you want to oversimplify. (Unless, on second thought, you’d think that had sodomitical overtones, which I suspect you would do. Regard me then as your, and your blog’s, desperately needed “bad cop.”)
Pharisaical hypocrisy presents in many forms, George, and the gnats it fixates upon for zealous swattings vary. These days though it seems to swallow in one big gulp great blue whales, or, in particularly grave cases, imperial (or autocratic) black holes.
Mike, one of my favorite political philosophers was George Orwell. If I may paraphrase him in Okie: “never use a $1.95 word when a 50 cent one will do.” You talk incessantly about “miasma,” and accuse me of “pharisaism,” saying that I swallow blue whales while straining on gnats. Yet you never provide examples.
In Wilkeson, Washington, a small hamlet in the Mt. Rainier foothills, there is a little Orthodox church by the name of Holy Trinity. It looks like a New England clapboard chapel, with the main external difference being its blue cupola where the steeple would be. The parish was founded by Carpatho-Russian miners in the late 1800s, and became Orthodox as part of the movement spurred by Fr. Alexis Toth. The area was in those days known for coal mining and sandstone quarries.
The church remained in good repair and held on by its fingernails to its existence for many decades through the efforts in particular of one family, the Michels, who happened into Wilkeson in the 1930s.
When I came upon Holy Trinity in 1979 or 1980, the congregation was growing, and Divine Liturgy was celebrated a couple of Saturdays per week by Fr. Vadim Pogrebniak, the dean of St. Spiridon’s OCA cathedral in Seattle. I began to attend them now and then.
One Saturday, sometime in 1981 or ’82, I went up to attend the liturgy. It turned out that the bishop was there. He was Bishop Basil, they said. There was a bit of a retinue with him, so the tiny church was crowded. It must have been near the feast of the Transfiguration, because that was the reading, and after it the bishop began to speak about that event.
For years I have tried to describe to others what then transpired, and the effect it had on me. The only way I have been able to put it is that his talking about the Transfiguration was so simple and matter-of-fact, as if he had just discussed the miracle shortly after it happened with Peter himself, that it suddenly hit me: he believed! Not metaphorically, not “poetically” not, for that matter, “religiously”. Just as a simple, true event, that could have just taken place. This has had, ever since, a powerful effect on my faith. I thought, if he believes like this, perhaps I can, too.
Moreover, I had the powerful impression (as a Presbyterian, mind you) that here was a true bishop of Christ’s church. He was clothed in magnificent vestments. But he was deeply humble, had a long gray beard, and seemed to me to be in every way what the first bishops must have been like.
Only many years later, in fact probably within the last 2 or 3 years (remember, there was no internet 30 years ago!), did I find that he was +Basil Radzianko, and learned some more things about him.
Wonderfully said. Your description of the chapel brings back such peaceful memories. . . . I was married there.
Collette, I am glad this struck such a chord! What a beautiful, peaceful little church to be married in, indeed!
Here’s a pic, for those who may be interested:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3714/9538417277_3ffbf0a604_z.jpg
….Although I’m merely a potential convert to Orthodoxy myself (in a many decades-long catechumenate) — from the Roman Catholic Church — and therefore not formally Orthodox in the official, bureaucratic sense and so, arguably, not a fit discerner of anything Orthodox,…
Mike, please take your time becoming Orthodox, another couple of decades would be just fine…or best, stay where you are. There you will have many more intellectual and more so, progressive, equals as you could ever find here on this unenlightened blog. So please don’t hurry, don’t rush… In the meantime we unenlightened Orthodox will just have to muddle on without your input. Disappointing as it may be, we will have to endure.
I just don’t understand what makes you feel compelled to come here and read our misguided opinions and non-progressive ejaculations. Never mind that your brilliant input really is way above our abilities to comprehend .. like you know, swine and pearls, eh?.
Nothing like a warm welcome to the country club!
Mike,
Beautiful writing.
“Although I’m merely a potential convert to Orthodoxy myself (in a many decades-long catechumenate) — from the Roman Catholic Church — and therefore not formally Orthodox in the official, bureaucratic sense and so, arguably, not a fit discerner of anything Orthodox, maybe . . . still, I’ve been around the block once or twice. This Misha character taken neat triggers some alarms and flashing red lights in me prima facie. And his sort of “phronema” is one I’m wary of.”
Might I suggest then that you remain for some further decades a catechumen? Were you to leave the Church of Rome, you might inadvertently lower the collective piety of both your former and newly adopted homes. Perhaps a move sideways to the Episcopalians?
George, I pass on responding to these irrational non sequiturs, which seem to bubble up incessantly out of the miasma of your morbid obsessions, only to pop here on Monomakhos (and stink). I don’t care to enable you, out of what I like to think of as a certain therapeutic sensitivity. Call it tough love, if you want to oversimplify. (Unless, on second thought, you’d think that had sodomitical overtones, which I suspect you would do. Regard me then as your, and your blog’s, desperately needed “bad cop.”)
Pharisaical hypocrisy presents in many forms, George, and the gnats it fixates upon for zealous swattings vary. These days though it seems to swallow in one big gulp great blue whales, or, in particularly grave cases, imperial (or autocratic) black holes.