American Orthodox

[Sean Kealey]

Dear All,

I was curious as to why there is not, as far as I know, and American Orthodox Church. I am probably really just sharing my ignorance right now. But there is a passage of scripture where Paul talks about how an unbeliever should be able to walk into a meeting and not feel as though he has entered a foreign land. The church should reflect the culture (to an extent obviously, if there is something within the culture that conflicts with teachings of the Lord, those teachings obviously win out). I do understand that the U.S. is a melting pot of cultures, but I was just curious why there is not an American Patriarchet, if that's the proper phrase. Also, are there serbian or antiochene or greek churches in, say, Russia? I know Mt. Athos has different national monasteries. If there were to be an American Orthodox, would that cover North, Central, and South America? Just some petty curiosities. Thanks.

Sean

[Eugene]

There is American Orthodox Church - it's The Orthodox Church in America http://www.oca.org/

[Donald L McDaniel]

There is an Autocephalous Church for North America: The "Orthodox Church in America" (http://www.oca.org). This jurisdiction has only recently come into being. It grew out of the Russian Orthodox Church's Alaskan and North American jurisdiction (with their apostles originally coming from Russia), and receiving its Canonical approval from those worthy divines of the Russian Orthodox Churches in Russia. If I am mistaken, I feel confident that other more qualified persons than I will correct me.

But this is my understanding, poor as it is.

An ignorant sinner, Donald L. McDaniel

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

In an attempt to reply to Sean's post, there is the Orthodox Church in North America, it is autocephalos (since 1970), in Canada it is under the Omophorion of Bishop Seraphim (Storheim) who also is the Head of External Affairs of the O.C.A. In the U.S.A. the main Hierarch is Metropoliatan Herman.

Historically the term 'Patriarch' is granted after a long passage of time, often centuries. This was the position of Romania which was under the Ecumenical Patriarch until 1925. Even until the 17th-18th centuries the language of the Church (in Romania) was Slavonic. The complete Bible was not published in Romanian until 1688, though certain Books of the Bible, notably the Psalms, had been translated as early as the 15th century. The Romanian Church obtained autonomy from the Ecumenical Patriarch in 1855. As mentioned above the establishment of the Patriarchate was in 1925, seven years after the union of Transylvania with Romania (in 1918).

To this day Greece does not have a Patriarch, rather Archbishop Christodolous is the head of the Church in Greece. A sometimes unpleasant dialogue about this exists with Bartholomew and Christodolus, since Greece is officially under Constantinople.

Athos, though having Romanian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Russian and once Georgian monasteries is totally under the Omophorion of Constantinople. This provides an often active 'tension' especially regarding the Russians and Ukrainians at St. Panteleimon.

Thus, to make a long story short, historically patience is the key. True, it is not canonical to have Serbian, Greek, Russian (including the O.C.A and ROCOR and the Moscow Churches) overlapping in North America. But this is the New World after all. Since the Boston Tea Party until now is not a long historical period according to Orthodoxy!

And really have we in North America proved ourselves worthy of a Patriarch? I personally do not think so.

St. John Cassian was born about 360 in Scythia Minor (Dobrogea) and one can still see the ruins of seven paleo-Christian basilicas from the 4th to 6th centuries. Desirous to know and share in the life of the Desert Fathers, Cassian left his fatherland (present day Romania) and undertook the long journey to Palestine and Egypt. The experience he acquired in his travels are noted in his 'Cenobitic Institues' and the 'Conferences'.

So, basically, what is the rush? In North America we expect instantaneous relief (aspirin)...Great Britain does not have a Patriarch either, and certainly the Celtic monks had dwellings when the Native People were roaming and following buffalo.

The question is legitimate, the answer is the long-suffering patience of Orthodoxy!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The reason why there are separate Orthodox administrations or jurisdictions is mainly due to the fact that each church or jurisdiction has a mandate to serve the faithful of its own cultural group without this meaning-hopefully-that the doors are closed to others. In this way as the faithful assimilate different churches begin to resemble each other through some sort of natural process and a there is greater desire for administrative unity than previously.

Due to assimilation & the possibility of reconciliation between ROCOR & the MP I think there is much greater potential for unity within Orthodoxy in N America. In my opinion however the fact that separate jurisdictions have serious & ongoing mandates to serve their own people has not been enough taken into account in considering how to achieve unity. All of the good willed meetings in the world do not solve the practical question of how to combine one administrative church with separate ethnic parishes. It simply is not realistic for example to expect Serbs to attend an American Orthodox parish if they could attend a Serbian one. Also where jurisdictions such as the OCA or ROCOR have had multiple ethnic groups within their churches often these groups have become separate worlds to themselves. Which leads one to raise the obvious question of how one administration would avoid ending up with basically the same situation we were trying to get around.



About the possibility of there being one church within North America though- there already is One Orthodox Church in North America!

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Alec Lowly]

Sean Kealey writes:


"I do understand that the U.S. is a melting pot of cultures, but I was just curious why there is not an American Patriarchet, if that's the proper phrase."

In 1970 the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church granted autocephaly -- independent self-government -- to what was once known as the Russian Metropolia in North America. Having received autocephaly, that hierarchy, clergy and laity of that church adopted the name The Orthodox Church in America (OCA). Its autocephalous status is unique in the Western hemisphere. Virtually all OCA parishes and missions in the United States and Canada use English exclusively in worship services.

[Antonios]

Excellent question, Sean. There should be a united American Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church of America is trying hard to establish such a thing, notably with the Antiochian Church, and hopefully in our lifetime this will happen. I think one of the biggest reasons is that Orthodoxy is fairly new to the Americas when compared to the other Autocephalous Churches of Orthodoxy found throughout the world. Many of the Orthodox parishes here in the States are still first or second generation immigrants by majority. As time goes by, and more American born and raised Americans join Orthodoxy, this dream may come true. This really is an exciting time for Orthodoxy here in the 'New World'!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

There is an Autocephalous Church for North America: The "Orthodox Church in America"

But yet de facto the Orthodox Church in America like other jurisdictions has only managed to become an autocephalous jurisdiction- not the autocephalous Church of N America. The reason for this is that the other jurisdictions believe they still have a proper mandate to their own people & there is also concern about trying to create a N American Orthodox Church solely under the umbrella of one other jurisdiction. In other words what the other jurisdictions are trying to say is that they are concerned that at least in the past the project of unity has been at least partly an effort to bring all Orthodox jurisdictions under the umbrella of one other jurisdiction.

I think this issue needs to be discussed very seriously since
it really is one of the main reasons why unity has not gone forward in the past. In reality we already have two models at play- SCOBA: a pan-jurisdictional effort towards unity; and the one jurisdiction model: where it is proposed that all jurisdictions go under the umbrella of another. Perhaps it can be seen how there is a contradiction between these two models of unity.

Please believe me that I am not trying to be offensive or difficult with these words. Rather I am trying to point out what others- who are also converts who use English- are saying in other jurisdictions. They too- including in rocor- deeply want unity- but believe that this mainly will be achieved through a common vision of purpose rather than through the jurisdictional model.

Probably all of this will just take time. In the past we often tried to pursue administrative measures in order to attain unity. But each time after a few steps this would fail mainly because it was recognised that something fundamental was still missing. Now I think we recognise how there must be a common Orthodox mind in order for there to be real unity. And indeed compared to 30 years ago there is far more unity in this sense. We are much more likely to have a common mind and heart about the Faith & this has led to a situation where we are much more likely to visit each other's parishes and feel at home.

This however has been achieved through our common spiritual life so that administrative measures in a sense have only been blessings for what already is a de facto new situation. It could be then that this is the model for unity. If so then we need to be aware of this and keep doing that hard work of getting to know each other and of learning how we are brothers & sisters in Christ in His One Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

PS: I see that my rocor post was missing a sentence or two after too much cutting & pasting of the original. I think it still gets across the basic idea I was trying to convey however.

[Alex Haig]

Do not make the mistake of thinking that what needs to happen is for the Bishops to get together in a Pan-Orthodox Conference and to sort out the problems in the West - organisational unity cannot be imposed from above but has to be worked out on the ground first by co-operation between churches based on a local level (shared hospital/prison visits, educational programmes &c). It is only by working together that we can achieve a situation where there is chance of one jurisdiction.

I think part of the problem is that those outside the Church are confused by the Orthodox, they see tags saying 'Greek', 'Russian' or some other ethnic label and think that these are different Churches. Whilst 'Greek Orthodox' could be used as a generic label, I think other Churches might not like to be called that so perhaps all of us describing ourselves as 'Orthodox Christian' might better proclaim our eucharistic unity to the world?

With love in Christ

Alex

[Alec Lowly]

Father Raphael writes:


"But yet de facto the Orthodox Church in America like other jurisdictions has only managed to become an autocephalous jurisdiction- not the autocephalous Church of N America. The reason for this is that the other jurisdictions believe they still have a proper mandate to their own people & there is also concern about trying to create a N American Orthodox Church solely under the umbrella of one other jurisdiction. In other words what the other jurisdictions are trying to say is that they are concerned that at least in the past the project of unity has been at least partly an effort to bring all Orthodox jurisdictions under the umbrella of one other jurisdiction."

Yes, and let it be remembered that Orthodoxy was planted on these shores -- the first Divine Liturgy celebrated, the first missions, the first converts, the first saints, the first martyrs, the first hierarchs, the first native clergy, the first monastery -- by a "jurisdiction," that is, by the Church of Russia, which created a diocese in North America that ministered to ~all~ Orthodox of ~all~ national origins for more than a century before the scandalous and uncanonical proliferation of "jurisdictions" came to be the rule here.

Whatever its faults and deficiencies, the OCA is the only direct descendent of Orthodoxy's original plantation in the Americas -- the daughter, as it were, of the evangelizers and enlighteners -- and, quite properly, the only autocephalous church in this hemisphere.

[Olga]

Dear Fr Raphael and others,

The situation is no different here in Australia, where we have any number of jurisdictions associated with the various Orthodox churches, run along essentially ethnic lines. Given that European settlement in Australia dates from only 1788, when the British set up a penal colony to house convicts because British jails couldn't cope, and the vast majority of people who came here (convicts and free settlers) for much of that time were from the British Isles. Only after the end of the Second World War, and the Federal Government policy of "populate or perish" (large land mass roughly the size of continental USA but with less than a few million population at the time) led to the large-scale migration programs which allowed, for the first time, significant numbers of Europeans, to settle here, including those from Greece, Russia and other nations associated with Orthodoxy. All this suggests that it will be a VERY long time before Australia has any real chance of having a single, unified, "home-grown" Australian Orthodox Church. At least, hardly likely in my lifetime. However, there are a few tentative steps in this direction. There is Holy Cross Mission, an entirely English-language mission church in the heart of Melbourne (Australia's second-largest city) under the omophorion of ROCA, and, all being well, there may soon be a similar English-language mission set up in Adelaide, also under ROCA. Small steps, but it's a start.

I feel the biggest stumbling block for any "home-grown" Orthodox church to get off the ground in a country not "inherently" (if I must use that word) Orthodox is the myriad of jurisdictions which apply to the existing churches, and the associated connection between "ethnicity" and faith. I do not wish to offend anyone's faith or ethnic background, nor do I want to give the impression that the traditions (including language) should be completely ditched and replaced with English. I myself am of immigrant ancestry, and have had experience both in the Greek and Russian arms of the Orthodox Church. I love both the Greek and Slavonic forms. Yet the notion of an "ethnic club" must be resisted as much as possible. I'm sure we've all come across instances of the following, as I have, regarding attitudes to converts: "Oh, he's of ..... ancestry, how can he really be Orthodox?", or, as recently said (in innocence) to a catechumen of Anglo-Saxon background: "How can you become Orthodox? You're not Russian!)

The other consideration is the almost complete absence of the general public's consciousness about the existence of Orthodoxy. Those in the English-speaking world tend to think of the "traditional" churches as Roman Catholic or Anglican. Orthodoxy (as a faith, divorced from its "ethnic" connotations) barely registers on the radar, in Australia, at least. It will simply take time, a lot of time, dare I say, decades would be optimistic. But we have to start somewhere.

[Donald L McDaniel]

Please do not take any of my words as critical in any way, for they are not meant to be.

The situation is much the same here in the United States (at least from my perspective, a former "Cradle-Catholic/Evangelical/Reformed Protestant/Pentecostal-Charismatic one").

Most Americans are not even aware of the existence of the "Eastern Orthodox" churches. Americans tend to think in terms of Catholic (by which they mean "Roman Catholic"), or "Christianity founded by Jesus" (by which they mean any church founded during the Reformation Period"). Orthodoxy does not even come into their consciousness, unless they are immigrants from the areas of Europe and Asia associated with Orthodoxy, or immediate children of such immigrants.

If they are aware of an Orthodox Church (of any Jurisdiction [such a concept of "jurisdiction" would only apply in their thinking to law courts]) in their neighborhood, they will more than probably think of the parishioners as "foreigners", "Russians", "Arabs", "Catholics", "Africans", rather than "Christians". That is how deeply entrenched Evangelical Christianity is in the American psyche.

Go into any Yahoo Chat room (of the so-called "Christian" variety) and you will quickly see that any Orthodox person will always be associated with "Roman Catholicism" ("Mystery Babylon", in their thinking). These American Evangelicals (or atheists, or pagans) just cannot get it into their thinking that such a creature exists as "Orthodox Christian". Even if they do use the word "orthodoxy" [most do not have enough command of their own English language to even know what "orthodox" means] in a religious context, they are referring to strict adhesion to THEIR church's doctrine and dogma, not Patristic/Canonical Christianity).

In addition, to their way of thinking, the "Church Fathers" are the founders of their particular religious affiliations (all of whom came from the Reformation period in Europe). They do the best they can to withdraw from ANY hint of the Papacy. And the East is just not in their minds, except as the source of various types of "exotic foreign food" in the "Food Court" in the local shopping mall.

Sadly, there is a complete disconnect from the Church's Eastern roots (and the Church's history previous to the 15th Century) in the minds of the majority of American Christians.

>From my perspective, a unified American Orthodox Church, with English as its Liturgical and evangelical language, would go a long way toward increasing awareness of, and appreciation for, Orthodoxy in America.

Please forgive me if I have offended "ethnic" Orthodox persons. I do not mean to. I am personally grateful for the unbroken history of Orthodoxy in the East. The various ethnic Jurisdictions have kept pure Christianity alive for us here in the West, for which I will most certainly be eternally grateful when I stand before Christ and His Father; and without our immigrant ancestors, there would be nothing but Protestantism (probably of the heavily-Puritanical variety, including a theocracy rather than a Republic) in the United States (if at all).

A sinner, and unfaithful servant of Christ, Donald L. McDaniel

[Arsenios]

And the fact is that the US is generating now its own native clergy, and its own native missions. And when the missions seek a priest, and a priest seeks a mission, the minefields of the jurisdictions quickly become armed... For if an American priest in one jurisdiction visits a mission parish of another jurisdiction, and they together think that they can work together and succeed in the mission, they then need to receive the blessing of their respective jurisdictions...

And THAT is precisely where the issues that divide the patriarchates will create problems/temptations with what is good for the native [eg-US citizen] missions... Because there will be political issues that can [and normally will] take precedence over the considerations that are more properly focused on the establishment and praxis of the Faith...

So Glory to God!
Our work is cut out for us.
Keeping our eyes only upon God is no small matter...

Let us keep praying for all our Bishops...

Rdr. Arsenios

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Alec,

You wrote,


Yes, and let it be remembered that Orthodoxy was planted on these shores -- the first Divine Liturgy celebrated, the first missions, the first converts, the first saints, the first martyrs, the first hierarchs, the first native clergy, the first monastery -- by a "jurisdiction," that is, by the Church of Russia, which created a diocese in North America that ministered to ~all~ Orthodox of ~all~ national origins for more than a century before the scandalous and uncanonical proliferation of "jurisdictions" came to be the rule here.
Whatever its faults and deficiencies, the OCA is the only direct descendent of Orthodoxy's original plantation in the Americas -- the daughter, as it were, of the evangelizers and enlighteners -- and, quite properly, the only autocephalous church in this hemisphere.

Thank you for your post. Your brothers & sisters in Christ in the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR in N America also consider that the churches they are part of are a, "direct descendent of Orthodoxy's original plantation in the Americas -- the daughter, as it were, of the evangelizers and enlighteners." In other words we are all equally part of the legacy of the One Russian Orthodox Church. Sadly however due to the tragic circumstances of the 20th century we now find ourselves in three different jurisdictions. I would submit that the only way to heal this is by offering the best of what each of us is to each other and also being open to what others have to offer us.

All who are Orthodox feel that they have a legitimate place within the greater Orthodox Church in N America. But no matter how convinced we may be of our legitimacy I think the time has come to take fully into account the place of other jurisdictions also. For example the OCA & Antiochians have been talking of closer unity for many years now. It is scarcely possible that the Antiochians will accept unity based on what would be the virtual disappearance of their identity & mandate to their own people. So probably unity will take this into account.

Somehow I see this like inviting our brothers & sisters from every Orthodox jurisdiction over to our home. We talk about unity and rapidly we realize that each person has something valuable from their Orthodox experience to offer. But of course this also means being open to the experience of each other. This can only work if we get to the point where our vision for the Church shaped by our experience is not absolute & exclusive; and that it is willing to give in on things that are not essential.

I appreciated reading Olga's post about the situation in Australia and her comments that greater unity is probably not realistic for now because for one thing the Orthodox have only been in Australia since WWII. In N America however we have been here for over 100 years. And in that time we were blessed with saintly hierarchs- Sts Tikhon, Raphael, & John Maximovitch- who had a vision for the Church here and also took concrete steps towards this. Note though that for each of these hierarchs their vision was one based first on a kind of unity which I think Alex Haig refers to: "organisational unity cannot be imposed from above but has to be worked out on the ground first by co-operation between churches based on a local level (shared hospital/prison visits, educational programmes &c). It is only by working together that we can achieve a situation where there is chance of one jurisdiction." Thus in so many ways the seeds and foundations of unity have been provided for us which means that things are a step ahead compared to Australia.

Crucially however it seems that recently we have passed one more point in the road towards possible unity- and that is precisely that we are not the mutual threats towards each other's essential vision that we used to be. Our legitimacy is no longer based on challenging the right of some other jurisdiction to exist. (It can easily be seen how so many groups were not in communion with each other at that stage. How can you be in communion with a group that says your jurisdiction has no right to exist?). So from exclusive claims I think we can now move to offering to each other from our own distinct Orthodox experience in this part of the world. Certainly no jurisdiction including obviously the OCA is short on this experience.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Alec Lowly]

Reader Arsenios writes:


"And the fact is that the US is generating now its own native clergy, and its own native missions. And when the missions seek a priest, and a priest seeks a mission, the minefields of the jurisdictions quickly become armed... For if an American priest in one jurisdiction visits a mission parish of another jurisdiction, and they together think that they can work together and succeed in the mission, they then need to receive the blessing of their respective jurisdictions... "

Sigh. It seems to me that the first order of business for any "jurisdiction" is to fulfill the Great Commission (Matt 28:19), which means that it's the responsibilty of every jurisdiction to do so ~here and now~, in this place and in this time. Instead, we see so much of the energy of the church in America taken up with ~there~ (the "old country") and ~then~ (past historical circumstances, such as long-gone Byzantium or else 19th-century Holy Russia).

It is certainly true that the church in America must minister to immigrants here and now. But a decision has to be made whether we cling to the past or face the future.

The future is ~not~ the ethnic enclaves -- by the fourth or fifth generation here, they've become Americans, and all-too-frequently they're out the door, searching for a Christianity that speaks to the actual experience of their lives.

Besides, reverse the coin: were we to immigrate to Greece or Russia, we would not expect to find liturgy in English, would we? So why should Greeks or Russians who immigrate here expect to find liturgy in Greek or Russian?

Mother Church not only needs to feed and comfort the immigrants. She needs to teach and guide them. She needs to help the kids grow up.

The future could not be more obvious. It is to bring ~Americans~ into the church.

How do we do this? Here we are in this country. We see a deep spiritual hunger, we see deep spiritual confusion, and we sit here divided up into this or that jurisdiction, this or that ethnic, lacking unity, visibility and identity, such that searching Americans cannot see the forest (Orthodoxy) for the trees (Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc., etc.).

People say, well, what can we do, Orthodoxy is new here. Piffle! ~Everything~ is new here. That's not a problem, it's an ~opportunity~.

What we need is holy boldness. Let's shake the dust off our feet, get the incense out of our eyes and face the mission that the Lord has put before us, ~here and now~. We have to answer to Him, in the end. How will we answer if He asks us, Why did you put your light under a bushel?

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner

[Marc]

To all desirous of an American Church,

I have had both: an English liturgy and now a 99% Slavonic service. Can you guess which I prefer since I am not Russian and understand nothing in Slavonic except "Lord have mercy"?

One tries to follow and bow when appropriate, but slowly even a memory of the words of the Liturgy begins to fade. We have no bi-lingual liturgy books available in the parish and the few Americans here were, for the most part, raised with Slavonic. About 98% of the parish is Russian and sermons and announcements are given in that language. So it is my obligation to seek out someone to summarize what was said.

The greatest problem is that 1) meaningful confession must be sought elsewhere and 2) can one invite curious or slightly interested people to such services when they are going to be overwhelmed and not able to follow anything?

That to me is the biggest obstacle and the reason why we must have English everywhere in the USA. The Roman Catholics have Spanish Masses for their Hispanic population but this population is in the millions and they soon will be bi-lingual if they are not now. The attitude is 'this is a Russian parish' and so all signs and bulletins are in Russian.

Marc

[Arsenios]

Thank-you Alec...

Especially for your sigh!

It is so easy to loose sight of the horizon...

And the horizonless beyond it...

And as you say, miss the forest...

Yet a Church is a Bishop surrounded by the faithful...

And obedience a treasure...

Perhaps it is because I keep my eyes upon the culture that I worry maybe too much - I fear we have but little time before it will be too late to do a lot of good in it... And so I think I tend to lose patience too easily, and take as mine to fix that which is not mine to fix...

Sigh...

Rdr. Arsenios

[Alec Lowly]

Reader Arsenios writes:


"Perhaps it is because I keep my eyes upon the culture that I worry maybe too much - I fear we have but little time before it will be too late to do a lot of good in it... And so I think I tend to lose patience too easily, and take as mine to fix that which is not mine to fix... "

Well, you and I have that in common, Arsenios -- keeping our eyes on the culture. One reason why I think that's important is that history shows, I believe, that either the church directs the culture or the culture directs the church. So far, in my opinion, New World Orthodoxy has shirked its responsibility to witness in this area by withdrawing from the culture more or less altogether, instead dwelling in the past, instead preserving Old World cultures that have less and less revelance to America today as time goes on.

Please note, gentle readers, that I am not making an idol of "relevance," but using the word in what I believe to be its appropriate sense.

Yes, patience. I confess I have much work to do in that area, too.

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner

[Alec Lowly]

Marc writes"



"About 98% of the parish is Russian and sermons and announcements are given in that language. So it is my obligation to seek out someone to summarize what was said.

"The greatest problem is that 1) meaningful confession must be sought elsewhere and 2) can one invite curious or slightly interested people to such services when they are going to be overwhelmed and not able to follow anything?"


He who has ears, let him hear!

Have you investigated, Marc, whether other Orthodox churches in your area serve in English?

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner

[Marc]

Thanks, Alec, for your thoughts which I have read and enjoyed here.

You write: Have you investigated, Marc, whether other Orthodox churches in your area serve in English?

I have to answer yes. There are other jurisdictions and services over an area of 50 miles and closer which have a mix of English and Slavonic or Greek, or even mostly English but since I prefer a jurisdiction which is more traditional and on the Church's traditional Calendar, the result or consequence is that I am obliged to attend a parish which is still using Slavonic for the liturgy. I believe that as time goes on we will have to update ourselves. My hope is that we will go to at least a 50/50 situation which would hopefully please everyone. The priest is a fine person but his English is very limited and I believe this is the main reason for Slavonic in services. So just count you blessings where you have English.

I was not complaining in fact as this is my choice but I don't always appreciate it.

Glory to Jesus Christ! Marc

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Alec,

I can see that this is a very important issue for you as it should be for all of us. And for myself at least it is a very important issue mainly because it seems an opportunity is before us in a way that was not previously.

I believe your question, "why should Greeks or Russians who immigrate here expect to find liturgy in Greek or Russian?" gets exactly to the heart of the matter for implicit in your question is the assumption that when Greeks or Russians immigrate here it would be more proper for them to expect to find in the Liturgy and culture of the Church only that of the surrounding culture. But is this the proper purpose of the Church? Is it even what converts entirely hope for?

I think that we must rethink the focus of the question above. The primary focus for someone coming to the Church should not be a set of expectations but rather of discovering what faithfulnesss to Christ is. Faithfulness means many things within the Church but one of these is a basic liturgical faithfulness. This liturgical faithfulness is double focussed for it witnesses both to the faithfulness of the church one comes to- and also it appeals to the new comer to also attune themselves to this faithfulness. Without this a clear message of unrootedness and self-will are projected from the parish and this clearly affects the newcomer who follows in the same footsteps. It should also be said though that this is not at all only an ethnic/non-ethnic question. Ethnic parishes can be just as likely to lose track of the crucial role of liturgical faithfulness as one which uses the local language.

It is within this larger context of liturgical faithfulness that language should fall. Greeks & Russians can hear Byzantine Greek or Church Slavonic during the services not because they 'expect' this but rather because this is the faithfulness they brought to the Church and which is also asked of them. Of course though the use of English within the service is equally proper. But the main point is that the Church preaches the Word to its people in their actual language- not in the abstract 'language of the people'. Thus if in America we have a mission among Hispanic Americans we do not demand this mission use only English because this is 'the language of America'; in a Quebec mission we do not forbid French because Canada is mainly an English speaking country. If this is so then why is it proper to insist on English for Greeks or Russians?


Demanding the abolition of these liturgies for English in itself would not promote unity or one N American church in a proper Orthodox sense. Rather a strong argument could be made that such would weaken each parish as it removed what are important anchors of the faith.

Of course it would be wrong to go to the other extreme of not using English. We must openly support the use of English where this is warranted. Thankfully, although there is still much work to be done in this area, this is what is already being done in most jurisdictions now- they are responding to the actual situation of the people coming to the parish which includes those who only speak the local language. Thus many jurisdictions are now openly following the 'two languages' way.

For example the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada which is very strong here in western Canada and filled with new young people follows the two language way. According to the actual situation in each parish there is a different proportion of Ukrainian & English used. They also have an all English mission. What this does is to unify what could potentially be two conflicting groups based on language and culture. And actually this way is what from trial & error most jurisdictions (including the OCA -at least here) have come to- 'the two-language according to the actual situation' approach. (Actually some parishes are even multi-lingual).

For myself I think this way is genuinely Orthodox and even ingenious for it works with who and what people are rather than with an ideal. Following the first way promotes patience, humility and ultimately unity within the Church while it has been discovered over time that the latter way often leads to conflict and disunity.

I suppose it could be maintained, "if they would just totally assimilate there would be no dispute in the first place." But again I would say that from experience we have discovered that such a proposal produces no good fruit- mainly because the way in which each person adapts to and balances their Orthodox values with the world they find themselves in is a very delicate balance and not an either/or. And this is just as much so for converts or assimilated Orthodox (actually it is often more acute for them). So most try to balance assimilation and other Orthodox values.

I believe that the argument for 'total assimilation' arose in a context where parishes were very hesitant to use English. It also is connected to the hope for a unified and truly N American Orthodox Church. The essential point about the local language and culture needs to be taken into account. But also all of the variety that we have before us in Orthodoxy needs to be taken into account in our proposal for unity. And this includes the use of traditional church languages and culture.
Otherwise we ourselves will be a stumbling block to the very unity we want.

Unity will come about from the steps already achieved in N America towards this end. For important reasons all of this took time and has turned out to be something different from what some expected which was an either/or. But we must always be open to the actual path that God charts out for us rather than trying to impose a plan based on on abstract views of the past, present and future.

The idea that there was ever in the past a one language & one culture church does not bear up under scrutiny. The Church always accomadated itself to its flock and most of the time this flock was multicultured and multilinguistic. Such being so we are following in the precedent of the Church's legacy about culture.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Marc,

Thanks for posting again as this fills out the story. Often our place within the parish comes down to a set of priorities which will be different from person to person.

One thing to point out is the viewpoint which accepts that a Hispanic American Catholic parish would want to remain predominantly Hispano-American in language and culture but has problems with a Russian parish doing likewise. Often we think like this without examining the reasons why.

Beyond the simple issue of comprehension the acceptance of English is representative of being welcomed & of being allowed a place within the parish. On a deeper level it is also an acknowledgement of the special personal investment we put into attending such a parish- something which often involves sacrifice & sometimes feeling out of place. The pain we can feel in such a circumstance though needs to be balanced so that from justifiable questions we do not go to the extreme of becoming too demanding of the parish situation. This though is only to point out that if we are not vigilant with ourselves there is a risk of blaming others for what is really a situation to be worked through in Christian fashion.

We need to be patient and find a balance-point in all of this. It takes time for a parish to understand that for those who do not speak Russian or Greek, much more than just language is involved. We need to be patient with this, explaining to others where we are coming from, & also understanding that for Russian parishioners our presence is a challenge. Good change can come from this even though it is difficult.

On the other hand it can very well be that after spiritual advice and prayer it is found that a parish with more English would be better for us. There is nothing wrong with this. But such a change should be the result of something positive & not negative.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Alex Haig]

Dear all

While many of us converts dislike the "ethnic" parishes using a language other than English, we must remember why they were first set up - to care for an immigrant population.

Time will tell if they can survive without re-population from the mother country when second, third and fourth (and so on) generations come who will not necessarily speak that tongue and may well be married to people from a different ethnic background. For now they serve the purpose they were created for.

With love in Christ

Alex

[Marc]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Many thanks for what you have written. I don't disagree with anything you have written. In my case, I have chosen a situation which is more difficult and it is my situation, therefore I am not complaining even though my preference is for English due to my being a native of this country. Second, the people in my parish are very friendly, helpful and hospitable and receptive to Anglo-Americans so I have no difficulty with them. In fact, they are 'missionary' in that they are trying to reach a Russian population which is growing. The numerous visitors testify to this.

I was only pointing out why I appreciate the various comments in this thread. I speak three languages but not Russian or Greek even though I can muddle through with Greek prayers. Having served in a choir in the past, I know the liturgy well enough. So with that appreciation it is difficult not to have one's own language but other choices have been important for me and so I have to accept my situation and be thankful. It is possible to be in prayer all through the liturgy and I do find that many words begin to stand out after the repetition week after week.

I do not disagree with what you have written and I do have a spiritual Father who knows my situation. I often think that should I visit Russia I would feel "at home".

Yours in Christ, Marc

[Alec Lowly]

Father Raphael, bless ...

What follows are some brief responses to some points you've raised.

I thank you for the lengthy post and for the richness of the care and thought found therein. Churchill once said that a fanatic is a man who cannot change his mind and will not change the subject. I don't want to prove his witticism true <smile>. I've already said a lot on this topic. It's time for me to stop beating this drum.

In any case, another saying, author unknown: Thec definition of insanity is persistence in doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting a different result. Respectfully, I see something like this in evidence in the church's back-and-forth response to the obvious imperatives of its mission in America. i.e., to be the church in America. Greece and Russia already have their churches. Now it's time for ours. And it won't happen unless we commit ourselves to making it happen.

<<<>>>

Quite so. But liturgical faithfulness is not a matter of language. One can be liturgically faithful in any language.

<<<>>>

Because English, Spsnish, French and Portuguese are the languages of this hemisphere. People who immigrate here inevitably must become fluent in one or more of these if they are to be more than sojourners here. That's reality, Father. I would submit that the church should be on the side of reality. Serve liturgy in whatever language you wish, yet make it crystal clear to immigrants that services in their language(s) are a temporary, provisional measure. They are in the American church. The ~expectation~ is that they will worship in one or another of the local languages as soon as possible. The church is ~not~ helping these people by setting the bar any lower than that.

<<<>>>

It is "warranted" everywhere north of the Rio Grande except for the long-established Spanish-speaking communities in the United States and all of Quebec.

<<<>>>

And that's just fine, as long as everybody understands that this is a temporary, provisional, ad hoc arrangement. The goal is liturgy of the place in the language of the place. This should be ~explicitly~ asserted. If folks decide to schismate over the language issue, that would be very sad, but that potential danger must not stand in the way of the whole church's future, i.e., to be the church of America in America.

<<<>>>

Father, you must admit the irony of your position here. In what other area of church life would you be advocating ~against~ the ideal?

<<<>>>

More than that. It should be asserted as ~the norm~. Anything else should be understood as an accommodation.

<<<>>>

Father, I don't get this. What's abstract here? It's all very concrete. The actual path that God has charted for us has placed us ~here~.

Now I propose to shut up, in other words, holy silence <smile>.

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Marc,

In our predominantly Russian parish we have quite a few people like yourself whose main language is English- including as it happens the priest! (that's me)

It always amazes me how some of my English people are so at home with the Slavonic services (we do about 75%- 25% Slavonic/Eng on Sunday morning) and culture even though they speak no Russian and understand basically no Slavonic. Somehow they get by. But many others do need more and we try to meet the various needs as we can. So everyone is different on this issue and I certainly understand the challenges involved.

One thing that occurs to me is that if a person can learn Church Slavonic enough to understand the immovable parts of the Liturgy & Vigil then this is a tremendous advantage. Actually it's not too hard if you have a basic understanding of how Russian grammer works (especially cases which are basically the same for both Russian and Slavonic- except Slavonic has a vocative case). And the vocabulary is actually quite limited compared to learning a language a person would converse in.

More than that though if you can learn a bit of Church Slavonic you will see that actually the English doesn't always capture the whole meaning of the original. Not that English cannot convey what is needed- it definitely can. But it also misses some important things (eg the Great Litany in the original does not say "For the peace of the world...for... It uses o in the prepositional case which conveys a sense of 'about' or 'concerning'. A subtle but important difference from 'for' which is more external somehow to what is being prayed about) so I would say that having a knowledge of Church Slavonic or even better liturgical Greek would complement one's understanding of the English.

Just a few thoughts.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

PS: I see that Alec Lowly (that's got to be the most Orthodox last name I have ever seen) has replied to my last post. I'm quite busy right now but I'll get to it soon I hope.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Alec,

God bless.

Somehow my post didn't appear in between your reply. So it's difficult to know exactly how to reply although I think if I am reading you correctly you seem to be saying that liturgical language should be determined by the language of the immediately surrounding society. As you say, "Because English, Spsnish, French and Portuguese are the languages of this hemisphere. People who immigrate here inevitably must become fluent in one or more of these if they are to be more than sojourners here. That's reality, Father. I would submit that the church should be on the side of reality."


I honestly still do not see the Orthodox reason for this. If the reality we are dealing with is not the thousands of people who immigrate let's say from Greece, who speak Greek & who bring with them the inheritance of a sacred language (liturgical Greek)then I would say again that the we are not dealing with a reality but rather an abstract idea. Of course we must be all for the use of English or the local language- but again this is in response to the actual people who arrive in our churches- not to a theoretical demand which we place on them. What if a Frenchman begins attending or someone who grew up in the pre-Vatican II Catholicism? Are we to say, "sorry we cannot use French or Latin in the service because these are not the language of the surrounding society?"

Anyway I better stop now. I'm sure I am really proving the saying that, "The definition of insanity is persistence in doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting a different result." I don't really care for a different result though. You really care about your faith and that is wonderful and it is the only result anyone could hope for.


In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Olga]

Dear Fr Raphael

A further comment on my earlier post: While, of course, it was only after the end of the War that serious numbers of Orthodox (and others) came to these shores, Orthodoxy had had a (small) presence in Australia since the turn of the 20th century. In fact, the Holy Cross Mission recently established in Melbourne, is actually housed in a building which has had various uses over the century, but at the time the building became available for use by the Mission, it, incredibly, was discovered to have been the site of the first Orthodox services held in that city, in the 1890s! Amazing....

Dear Marc

I can help you (and anyone else, for that matter) with bilingual service books in any combination of Greek, Slavonic (Cyrillic and phonetic), and English. You're welcome to email me privately.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Further thoughts on this subject that need mentioning.

Language- it is not just a question of one language vs another; that of where we live or where we come from. Language in the Church is always of the Church; thus in Russia- Slavonic, Greece- liturgical Greek and even if it is in English it should be a churchly English. The language of the Church is liturgical.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

This is a long and very 'close to the heart' thread. Personally, I have not had in the past 'parish' problems, because the Lord always, through His Providence, due to my monastic focus, placed me in already established Monasteries.

When I first entered the Stavropegic Monastery of St. John the Baptist in 1975, the liturgical 'voice' of this Monastery was 98 per cent Slavonic, the remaining being Greek and English (the translations of which in 1975 were definitely in a state of progression.)

When due to my ever precarious health, Fr. Sophorny took pity on me and sent me to Greece and in particular the Holy Mountain, (in 1981). Here, after the tradition, of going from Monastery to 'taste and see,' I settled on a Greek monastery, Stavronikita, which provided me with its smallness both in numbers and size (which I prefer), the Abbot, Vailieos, who was fluent in French (which, being a Canadian, was ideal until I grasped demotiki (the every day language of Greece proper, Thessaloniki all the way to Athens, to simplify things,) plus, since I like walking, had an edge over (the ever remarkable) Simonas Petra (directly on the other side of the pennisula) where the terrain for walking is quite a challenge, especially in the heat. Consequently, my heart and feet felt at peace at Stavronikita.

Now God has seen it proper that I live in the 'Bible Belt' of Ontario, Canada.

I am surrounded by every 'ever-mutating' form of the 'gift' Maritn Luther gave to the Christian world of his time.

For myself to attend Liturgy, involves a 2 hour drive back and forth, thus four hours. I am under the Omophorion of Bishop Seraphim of the Orthodox Church in North America. Yet, travel-wise, (and now with the ever-fluctuating price of petrol) the closet Orthodox parish is outside Ottawa, and is a ROCOR parish, where the Liturgical service is 98 per cent Slavonic, with a heavily accented two per cent of English, since the very gifted priest, was born in Russia, though he is virtually fluent in spoken English.

For myself the main concern, may God forgive me, is the price of gasoline, (which can change several times in one day!) This has more impact on me than the Liturgical Language.

Due to my monastic past, I am perfectly comfortable in Slavonic, Greek (which in the Church is not demotiki, but rather Byzantine Greek, which grammatically entails a whole new ball game of conjugations and tenses.) And then the Bible is read in Koine (Greek) which was the demotiki of the epoch of Christ, but is itself grammatically different than Byzantine Greek and the spoken language of the monks, demotikiti. In Romainia, because it is Latin based and I am fluent in French, (thus, not being terribly hard to pick up) the Liturgical language is a fast paced Romanian.

Every issue raised here is legitimate.

But the real problem is this: no one (outside the Orthodox, or potential Orthodox) could care less. First they have no idea of what Orthodox Christianity is, secondly, we truly live in a fallen, post-Christian, secular/humanistic epoch.

Young people of 20 to 30 years of age are more occupied with the opposite sex, rap music, beer and just generally having a good time, than any thought about any Faith.

I know this because I work with 'street kids.' The tatoos...the lip, tonque, eyebrow piercing, the spectrum of hair colour and style, (more changeable than the price of petrol) is truly mind boggling.

Do you really think these non-Orthodox could care less about our pertinent concerns? The answer, sadly, is no. (Please download Beyonce's latest single for me - here is my Ipod, which has a capacity of up to 15 gigabytes!!)

Budddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, Christianity - in their terminology are - "give me a break..."

This is our challenge, our missionary work.

If you 'suffer' through Slavonic or Greek service, all the better, do the Jesus Prayer.

How about many Antiochian parishes, where Arabic is the Liturgical usage - understand that?

Our problem is the issues already raised, but rest at peace, no one else could care less.

Kyrie Eleison.

[Marc]

Dear Fr. Seraphim,

Your post was most interesting to me. Especially when you write:


"If you 'suffer' through Slavonic or Greek service, all the better, do the Jesus Prayer."

This is exactly what I do. I can now follow the liturgy in Slavonic as well as most and a new-comer would not know that I am not Russian unless he or she spoke to me. When I get to certain places in the liturgy, I do the Jesus Prayer especially when everyone is going to confession. Services in my parish last three hours due to hours and confessions being heard just before communion.

I have a feeling I know the parish priest in Ottawa of whom you spoke. I know how to say his name but not to spell it.

Anyway, gas (petrol or ethanol or "whatever") is a problem these days and I am grateful that my parish is only about eight minutes from where I live. Thank you for sharing your interesting experiences.

Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory Forever!

Marc

[Marc]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

I just may get some time to get to Slavonic but am studying another language for the moment. I know that there are recordings to help one learn Slavonic available from a group on Vashon Island. Thanks for your help. Marc