Autonomy

[Richard McBride]

Subject: Fw: [OrthodoxPSALM] Antiochian Archdiocese Granted Autonomy (fwd)
Date Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:38:26 -0500
From: "Sherry Abraham" <sherrya@wichitausa.com>

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ!

I'm sure you all know that Metropolitan PHILIP is at the Patriarchate, and has asked for autonomy. I received this press release last night, and thought you might be interested in reading it. It is very long, but is very interesting. I did visit with Fr. Paul O'Callaghan about it. He has talked to Bishop BASIL, and they indeed granted us autonomy "in theory". This means that we haven't actually been granted autonomy yet. But, as the
article states, 6 Metropolitans will form a committee to figure out the details of how our autonomy would work "in practice". I suppose they will then submit this to the Holy Synod and the decision will be made whether to grant us the autonomy or not. We're not there yet, but at least this is a good start!
With love in Christ,
Sherry


----- Original Message -----

Subject: Fw: [OrthodoxPSALM] Antiochian Archdiocese Granted Autonomy (fwd)

Antiochian Archdiocese Granted Autonomy
>
Historic Action on Eve of Key GOA, OCA Congresses
>
>Analysis by Stephen P. Angelides
> Managing Editor
> Orthodox Christian News Service
>
> June 17, 2002 (OCNS) -- The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America (AOA) has been granted autonomy by the Patriarchate of Antioch, according to a report by one of the AOA's bishops, Bishop Basil.

ETC............

If there is any interest in the whole press release, which is fairly long, I will ask Matthew about posting it.

richard sd

[Sharon Ellis]

And another wall to Church unity throws itself up. God forgive us.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Richard,

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the issue of autonomy, vis-a-vis the Antiochian Archdiocese of America; namely, whether or not you feel it is a constructive, positive move for the Church in America, or otherwise.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

I'm going to horn in here and offer my two cents worth, having come into Orthodoxy via the Antiochian Archdiocese. (Now a member of a Greek parish). Autonomy will be good for Arab Christians in America and in principle is the canonical thing to do. It makes no sense for America to be governed by hierarchs from a foreign land at this stage, for America not to be able to choose its own hierarchs. On the other hand, it will not make Orthodox unity in America under a single hierarch or hierarchical body simpler or easier. Of course, I'm a cynic. I don't see how Orthodoxy in America can become anything other than a protestantized, secularized version, due to the cultural environment, aside from a few breakaway parishes and monasteries. Most ethnic Orthodox came to America to escape political persecution and strike it rich. Orthodoxy is a cultural legacy for most of them, which is not to say that there aren't very many pious individual members. But the trend is for ethnic Orthodoxy in AMerica to become like Episcopalians.

Eventually you'll have a situation or problem like the Romans have, in which America becomes the largest, richest part of the Church, with the most liberal (secular) tendencies.

[Vlad Benea]

It is very complicated for me (as a non-American), to understand all these talks about Autonomy and jurisdictions of the Church in America. If someone could explain me this (the basic lines), or set me towards a useful site, I would appreciate it.
In regard to your comment, Owen, I don't know if you read Fr. Braga's works. He is a Romanian who was exiled in the US in the communist regime, and on coming home once (here in Romania), he published a book on the American Orthodox spirit, very very interesting. He says that the Orthodoxy there is very different than the one here, as in terms that the "traditional" orthodoxy is more spiritual, and that in the US things are more "economic", club-like organized. He said everything there, including the Church, has to be organized in Clubs. (I know I was very incoherent, sorry)
He is very optimisthic though. He says that the fact that American spirituality is different, it doesn't mean it is necessarily bad. Orthodoxy is for everybody, for every human nature, and for every way of viewing life.
He gives a very funny example. Being a spiritual father in a monastery of nuns, he has to give certain tasks to the mother abbess (I don't know if this is the term). On comparing her with Romanian abbesses, which have a certain amount of freedom, as in the sense that they manage the way they can, without asking him how to do those tasks, the American abbess has to be directed specifically in fulfilling those tasks. She has to be explained step-by-step what to do, when and where to do it, or otherwise she is lost. (again I am aware of my English limitations).

In Christ,
Vlad

[Owen Jones]

That's because Orthodoxy here is something that is forced. It's not a natural thing. There is a kind of artificial, unnatural aspect to it. An overgeneralization, to be sure, but I guess the best way of putting it is that it is like trying to rush an authentic marrow stock that you intend to use for a rich sauce. It will never turn out right when you rush it.

[Richard McBride]

The Not-so-good News #1

Vlad said earlier:
“It is very complicated for me (as a non-American), to understand all these talks
about Autonomy and jurisdictions of the Church in America. If someone could explain me this (the basic lines), or set me towards a useful site, I would appreciate it. “

Unhappily, I cannot explain it. However, there is this paragraph from the Orthodox Christian News Service update as of 1 June 17, 2002, concerning some of the history of these things:

15 “Traditionally Orthodox churches have been organized along national, not ethnic, lines. Missionaries such as Saints Cyril and Methodios succeeded in spreading Orthodoxy by translating the faith into the native language and culture of the local population. In contrast, so far in the U.S., Orthodox churches have been organized primarily along ethnic lines. This unorthodox situation is the result of immigrants bringing their faith with them to the U.S., and their faith serving as a framework for the preservation of their ethnic cultures in a multi-cultural society, as well as some competition by the Mother Churches.”

And if this only reinforces what Fr. Braga has already told Vlad (by reference, the social clubs typically formed by every ethnic group in a diaspora, not just in the US, are also the bases for starting most of the Churches away from home) -- if this is only retelling what I think Vlad already knows, it also suggests that if the answers are in the(se) details (I personally think not), then such news releases will speak to what Vlad is asking.

The news has been from the Antiochian table. But where does the American Greek Church fit in?:

7 “The GOA is struggling with the issue of its own autonomy from its Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, located at the Phanar in Istanbul, Turkey. In June 2000 the hierarchs of the GOA went to Istanbul and presented their own proposal for a new GOA charter that would have given the GOA autonomy from the Phanar. The Phanar rejected the GOA hierarchs' proposal and substituted its own proposed charter for the GOA, which would increase its control over the GOA and its parish properties, and decrease the role of the U.S. clergy and laity in the GOA's governance.
>
8 “The charter will be on the GOA Congress's agenda for discussion, despite the Phanar's wishes to the contrary. However the GOA has indicated that its delegates will not be permitted to vote on the charter issue, even though the current GOA charter gives them the right to do so. Over 185 parishes have written to the GOA questioning the Phanar's proposal. Many of those parishes have asked for a vote on the charter at the upcoming GOA Congress.
>
9 “The timing of the Antiochian Patriarchate's decision to grant autonomy to the AOA just two weeks before the GOA's Congress may be more than coincidental. Some influential members of the AOA have been pushing hard to get Antioch to act on their autonomy petition prior to the GOA Congress. Their hope seems to be that a favorable response from Antioch would advance the cause of autonomy within the GOA. In the AOA, the U.S. clergy, laity, and hierarchs were all united behind the AOA's autonomy proposal, which passed the AOA General Assembly on July 27, 2001 with a 97.7% favorable vote.
>
10 “In the GOA, however, even though the GOA hierarchs had initiated the autonomy proposal, the Phanar's intervention thereafter seems to have split the GOA hierarchs away from the rest of the GOA on the autonomy issue. In June 2001 the GOA issued a press release announcing that its hierarchs and the Phanar's had completed negotiations over the new charter and it was in "final form." Just last week one of the GOA hierarchs, Metropolitan Anthony, revealed to the National Herald that GOA Archbishop Demetrios had signed the Phanar's draft of the GOA Charter in Istanbul. Thereafter, however, after a meeting in New York with leaders of the |b{Orthodox Christian Laity (OCL) Demetrios approved sending the proposed charter to the GOA parishes for comment. Over 185 parishes responded with an avalanche of comments, at best lukewarm, and at worst overtly hostile, to the Phanar's proposal. Because of the apparent split within the GOA over the autonomy issue, GOA autonomy advocates hope that the Antiochian action will help them reassure those within the GOA who fear autonomy would be a risky or dangerous step for the GOA.”
................................

Informative for those of us not directly involved in these struggles (as contrarily are the members of the OCL), these news releases describe fairly well what is happening on the surface; but they also give ample suggestion to the darker works bubbling out of range of the public ear. There should be no surprise in all this. After all, we are discussing the extension precisely of what Seraphim has voiced so well. We are speaking of the American ego still trying to justify its war for independence, a myth it also has been fabricating as it moved along the way. We must continue to strain for independence.

For me, who knows nothing, all this is a diversion.

[Richard McBride]

The Not-so-good News #2

In the news report which I quoted earlier, there is also this paragraph:

6... “In the newspaper interview [during the AOA's General Assembly meeting on July 27, 2001, with The National Herald, Metropolitan Philip] ... said that if Antioch did not grant autonomy, he would seek to discuss the formation of an autocephalous American Orthodox Church with Archbishop Demetrios of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. Demetrios promptly responded by telling the newspaper that he "would not even discuss" autocephaly with Philip.”
...............................

This is the disturbing bit. As I see it, the American urge is to justify some sort of individualism, which in reality has never existed (except in the minds of its seekers), and this makes for a very nervous disposition. It has become best demonstrated perhaps, as the Frontier Ethic. That character is on one side of the table of Autonomy being convened these days. On the other side is the much older (though not necessarily wiser) crew represented in the above paragraph. With those folks the ethic is perhaps best represented in the old saw of Byzantine Politics. (Actually, I think the phrase is not all that old. As I recall, the term “Byzantine” appeared of the 19thC when a French journalist was trying to describe a situation in a most unflattering fashion; “Byzantine” was the result.)

Over the ages, the two warring sides have usually recovered from these sieges of autocephaly, I suppose. And in truth, this one seems to have been (so far) exceptional in its lack of rancour. But then, its not over yet either.

In the end, Someone is going to ask, What have you been after? Was all the strife created over autocephaly worth very much?

PS
I am reminded of Gulley Jemson giving art lessons to Lady Whatshername. Her husband was pressing Gulley for a kind remark concerning her recent work. Finally, when pushed a bit, Gulley half heartedly said, “Well, it is a bit accidental, isn’t it? Like when the cat spills its cream.” But that only encouraged Lord Whatshisname to seek a real accolade, now; one which might wipe out the previous rejoinder. Under the pressure, Gulley finally blurted, “OK! OK! (I think of him exploding), “Her little picture may be as clever as farting Anney Laurie through a keyhole! But what’s the point?” [These are Joyce Cary’s words, mostly.]

forgive me; I am, after all, only richard; and I am likely to be mistaken over this as well.

[Owen Jones]

Thanks for an entertaining piece of wisdom, Richard. Frankly, nobody outside the Antiochians can stand Bishop Phillip, and I doubt anyone trusts him.

oaj

[Owen Jones]

Richard,

HIstorically, America was under the Moscow Patriarch, because it was the Russian Church that sent the first missionaries to the U.S. That was ended by the Communists, so after that it was everyone for himself in the U.S. The Greeks, being the largest and wealthiest group, have gained dominance, under the fiction of an Ecumenical Patriarch, who truly only represents about 10,000 Christians in Turkey, but who wishes to be taken seriously on a geopolitical level on a par with the Pope. The Greeks I know think of the Patriarch as basically driven by money and power. For my own part, I see a man who wishes to be very pc.

It's inevitable that there is eventual autonomy in the U.S. Greek and Arab dioceses. It's a bit like the Jewish American dillemma. Isreali Jews say that American Jews aren't really Jews. But, by the way, send us all your money. So that kind of attitude will lead to autonomy. It's inevitable. The real question is whether or not there will be any real spiritual revival. Most likely in my lifetime you will see the Greeks and Antiochians move further toward the Episcopalians, with a few disenchanted priests and laymen left by the wayside. The Russian Church has its own serious problems.

One of the brightest lights among convert parishes having been stomped on, it's hard to see why any Americans would want to become Orthodox in any considerable numbers. I think we need either a holy fool as a leader, or our version of Joan of Arc. More likely, just a lot of muddling through for the foreseeable future. At least you can walk into any Orthodox parish in America without the likelihood of an aggregiously heretical sermon. In this day and age, that's quite a miracle.

oaj

[Vlad Benea]

Thank you Richard for your clarifications. I would have some more questions though. As you said, the Church in America is based on ethnic considerations. Now as I understand it, the GOA represents the Greek, but the AOA? (I do know that they are dependant of the Antiochian Patriarchate, but what ethnic group are they? The reason I am asking is because I know a priest in Viena who is dependent of the Antiochian Patriarchate and he is Greek). Also, I understand that there is another Church, OCA. There are many problems with the Romanian Church from America also (of this I do know). Basically, the exiled from the communist regime do not acknowledge the "official" church. That is just the basics though.
However, I would like to make one more comment. All this judging of the bishops, has some bad smell. Very bad. It is true for example that St. Gregory the Theologian criticesed thoroughly the bishops, but only after he was one. Are we, some of us only new converts, entitled to judge our shepherds? This is very aching for me. Let us remember that Saint Constantine the Great, in the starting of the first Council in Nice, refused to respond to the accusations that bishops presented amongst themselves, as he said he was not a bishop, and that bishops will respond only in front of Christ. Let's not forget Matthew 7,1-6. Perhaps a little more humbleness would do more than the "two cents" bit.
Also, this type of statement: "I have many problems with the Orthodox Church" makes me worry deeply. I think it should rather be the other way around. At least that's the fact for me. The Orthodox church has many problems with me, and I can't thank Lord enough that she still keeps me inside its "breast".
Forgive, please, my English, and my comments,
Vlad

[Owen Jones]

But there can also be a false humility and false obedience that leads to the destruction of the faith, tyranny, corruption. I think it is false to say that our pastors have an exclusive responsiblity for the purity of Orthodoxy. When they are themselves disobedient, heretical, mentally ill, or simply incompetent there must be some accountability. Also, the authority that a Bishop exercises is a spiritual one -- a servant authority. That is, through a willingness to lay down his life for one stray sheep, the shepherd takes on spiritual authority over the whole flock. It's not the same as: achtung! javole!

The laity should not be less obedient to authority. But it should be more discerning, and critical when necessary. If wrong, God will judge. In the meantime, we are all responsible. Not too long ago a priest in Moscow permitted an Episcopalian woman priestess to stand next to the altar during liturgy. There was a walkout by the parish and they refused to return to the Church until the priest apologized publicly. This is the kind of spirit we need more of here, only the laity are, generally speaking, lumps on a log and would never have the gonads to do something like that, as necessary as it is.

So when the first Greek or Arab bishop in the U.S. ordaains a woman, Vlad, who are we to blame? The Bishop or ourselves?

Owen Jones

[Richard McBride]

By "brightest stars" I take it you mean he who was of your same name sake?
My siritual advisor used to speak of that Seraphim's discernment as a warning to the new age; but I have read only his book on the Toll Houses -- which opens one up to thinking of death as the Fathers might wish -- but also which seemed obsessive on the toll houses.

[Richard McBride]

Hi Vlad:

You asked:
1. “...the AOA? (I do know that they are dependant of the Antiochian Patriarchate, but what ethnic group are they? The reason I am asking is because I know a priest in Vienna who is dependent of the Antiochian Patriarchate and he is Greek).

Yes, the Antiochian Church in America is under His Beatitude Ignatious, Patriarch (Damascus); and since the Russian Revolution (of which Seraphim spoke and which you have witnessed) the Antiochians have been the most progressive in supporting world wide missions; so, they are quick to take in all types: Greeks, Russians, Catholics, Methodists -- including a lot of new Western Rite churches, which other Patriarchies will not touch. But under Bishop Basil (who has been instructed by Metropolitan Philip, I take it, to expand Western Rite), they are both increasing and becoming Orthodox, little by little (it seems to me that Western Rite is becoming centred upon the old British Saints: Cuthbert, the Venerable Bede, etc., and this could be a serious source of rejuvenation for those who dislike the inevitable ethnicity of the ever-Eastern Byzantine Rite, which I dearly love). And it is true that since the Antiochian see is in Damascus, the hierarchy tends to be Arabic. Personally, I have found Arabic types to be quite and loving, and those who keep the faith seem more faithful than other ethnic groups (of course, there are many of them who have sold out to modern life and material gain; but maybe they will relent).

2. Vlad, I agree with your hesitation to pass judgment on Bishops, but that should also be extended to the Presbyters; as you say, we are not here to judge them; that would assume the prerogative of the Lord -- Heaven forbid!
For myself, my cup runs over with my own sins, and tending to their remediation takes more time and energy than I have.

3. It is a blessing, Vlad, for us to witness your love of Orthodoxy; contrarily, those who have been blessed to experience Orthodoxy, but then turned away, will be those who have suffered under many situations and who cannot settle themselves; remember, this is due to the demons driving them to change, to progress, to resentment of (yet adherence to) any number of other popular modernist traps and pitfalls.

I thank the Mother of God every day for drawing me into Orthodoxy -- so much Grace showered upon one wicked servant.

richard

“Oh, God, thou who knowest my foolishness;
And my sins are not hidden from thee.
Let not those who wait for thee, O Lord God of hosts,
be ashamed because of me.” Psalm 69

[M.C. Steenberg]

Just as a matter of technicality in this discussion on autonomy: as a point of fact, it is actually not true that granting autonomy to the AOA is canonically correct at this point. If the situation of Orthodoxy in America had progressed along the usual missionary and establishment lines on which it was begun and had not been fragmented by the post-Revolution upsets in Russia, then the issue of canonical establishment of autonomy would be much more cut-and-dry; but this is not the case.

The usual pattern for the establishment of a new local Church is (quite simplified) as follows:
Missionary outreach and establishment of parishes is carried out under the auspices of one of the older local churches, who acts in this capacity with the agreement of the other churches. This local Church thus becomes the 'Mother Church' of the diaspora under its care (in the historical formation of Orthodoxy in America, the Mother Church was the Moscow Patriarchate). As the Church in the diaspora grows, it is guided and governed by the Mother Church, until such time as it reaches ample size and self-sufficiency that that the Mother Church, with general consent (but not required 'permission') of the other local churches, grants autonomy, or partial self-governance, to the new Church. Once the autonomous local Church has existed for some time and is in such a state that the continued governance of the Mother Church, even in the once-removed autonomous relationship, is a hindrance rather than an aid, the Mother Church grants autocephaly to the new local Church, whereby it becomes a full local Church in every sense of the word. The decision to grant autocephaly, like that of autonomy, is to be done with the general approval of the other churches.[As an aside to the present discussion, a point of contention between the Greek Archdiocese of America and the OCA exists over the interpretation of stage three in the above ordering, as the Ecumenical Patriarchate feels that only the Ecumenical Patriarch has the authority to grant autocephaly to a Church. This is not technically the case: the canonical head of any autocephalous Church may do so, though traditionally this has been with the consent and blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarch as bishop of the first See in the ecumenical Church.]

What makes the current situation in America so difficult is that the Revolution in Russia upset the normal course of events, as simplified above. There is decidedly not a single, unified 'child' Church under the guidance of one Mother: rather, there is a fragmented diaspora under the guidance of multiple local churches -- an entirely un-canonical situation.

As such, any process of further localisation (e.g. the granting of autonomy or autocephaly), without first setting in order the divisions of the 'jurisdictions', is not canonically correct. It goes against the guidance of canons as old as those of the first two Ecumenical Councils (Nicea in 325 and Constantinople in 381) for multiple bishops to exert control or authority over the same populous or geographical reason, much less to establish 'competing' churches under overlapping metropolitanates.

But the canons aside, such actions are, in a practical sense, counter-productive to Church unity in America. Granting autonomy to the jurisdictions will only reinforce the disunity of the Church in the USA, and further hinder any sort of rapproachment between the varying jurisdictions that could eventually lead to a truly American Church.

That last paragraph is, of course, only my personal opinion.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

Thanks Mathew for correcting my point on autocephaly. Your conclusion I agree with completely. My point about the canonicity of autocephaly was more a general one that was implied -- that autocephaly really is the rule if you look at things overall. Local autonomy should be the case -- how can a bishop be a pastor to a flock which he has no connection to or with? Of course today bishops rarely fulfill a pastoral function.

[Vlad Benea]

I am probably drifting away from the main issue. Anyway: I do agree with you concerning the autonomy thing but I don't regarding the bishops (or priests). Whereas at all times there were bad bishops (sometimes even evil, unfortunately) and good ones (and the situation is the same now, you can't claim that there are no good bishops, responsible ones... probably less then before, but these are the times of the apocalypse, aren't they, when the Fathers say that the priests of God will trample over icons and such), so as I was saying, whereas at all times there were good and bad bishops, at no time it was good for a simple Christian to judge them, not to mention the Church entirely. I do agree we have to have discernment, but in private. At no time must this discernment of ours scandalize (is this the word?) other people. Let's imagine that there are people wanting to convert to Orthodoxy, or newly converts, or simply of other faith, reading these pages. What would they say when they will read these thorough critics made by us Orthodoxs? Why would they want to convert anymore, reading that our bishops are the most evil and irresponsible men in the world? Now I am not saying we should hide our flaws, no, but I am saying that we need discernment in our afirmations as well. By the way, when I say discerment in private (about the bishops or priests), I still don't mean judgement.

Thank you Richard for your kind remarks.

In Christ,
Vlad

[Andreas Prodromou]

I've followed this discussion with interested (as well as similar discussions in other discussion lists) and thought I'd share my thoughts with you. I don't think that granting some sort of autonomy to the AOA is a constructive move. It's just one more step in the creation of more divisions. There seems to be this notion among some members of the different jurisdictions in the States that most, if not all, of the the problems facing Orthodoxy in that country is the result of "foreign" hierarchs and links to "foreign" Church structures. So, getting rid of any connection to things outside the US would somehow lead to Orthodoxy flourshing etc. etc. I've lived in the US for many years and I fail to see how this would be. The problems (or maybe to be fairer I should say most of :-)) facing Orthodoxy today in the US do not stem from being associated with "foreign" Churches or having multiple jurisdictions. The main problem, in my opinion, is an I/me/mine culture coupled with an anti-clerical feeling not to mention secularisation of many of the Orthodox in the various Churches. This is what NEEDS to be fixed first NOT administrative structures. Administrative rearrangements of whatever sort will fall in place "naturally" once the spirit is "fixed".

Matthew, you wrote:

--------------------------------------------
1. Missionary outreach and establishment of parishes is carried out under the auspices of one of the older local churches, who acts in this capacity with the agreement of the other churches. This local Church thus becomes the 'Mother Church' of the diaspora under its care (in the historical formation of Orthodoxy in America, the Mother Church was the Moscow Patriarchate).
-----------------------------------------------

I believe the AOA and GOA wouldn't agree with you on this statement on the MP being the Mother Church in the US. Apparently all three sides claim to have come to the States at the same time :-)

Andreas

[Owen Jones]

Dear Andreas,

The most anti-clerical people I know are the Greeks in America who treat their clergy very badly. Converts tend to be far more respectful of clerical and especially episcopal authority, perhaps even over romanticising their position. Part of the problem is that most Greeks in America are political leftists and part of that pathology is to think of yourself as a victim of some conspiracy on the part of authority figures. That leftism is leading to a creeping liberalism in matters liturgical and theological.

The foreign hierarchs are holding onto the AMerican Church largely because of the millions of dollars they get from Americans, while often chiding Americans for being too rich, self-indulgent, individualistic. Somewhat hypocritical I would say.

I think it's simplistic to criticize America as materialistic and hedonistic. Compared to Europeans, Asians, heck, virtually everywhere I have travelled, America stacks up pretty well in the compassion business.

The problem as I see it is a kind of defensiveness on the part of the Orthodox, coupled with feelings that we are better than others because of our sublime traditions and theological truths, as if these are things that we possess. How is that any different than the criticisms made against Americans?

I don't think an indigenous hierarchy is a panacea. But we need one, so that we will grow up and take responsibility. Ultimately, the primary witness to America will come, not from parishes, but from monastic vocations -- that need to be seeded by well-established monasteries in Orthodox lands.

There are many millions of Americans who are seeking, many who indulge themselves in all kind of false erotic pursuits, not realizing that eros is kindled by the Holy Spirit. And there are many who are pursuing all kinds of crazy ascetic practices, not realizing that the one true ascetic is Christ. The problem is that in the American religious tradition, eros has been expunged, asceticism is something identified with Buddhism, and the aesthetic dimension of life is left to crazy, nihilistic artists and intellectuals. The average American middle class, materialistic slob has a lot more going for him than you think, since he tends to leave a fairly sound moral and spiritual life, working hard to support a family, and being a responsible citizen.

So what should be done? A sound, vital, thriving monasticism in AMerica would have great appeal, especially to many young people. BUt alas, our hierarchs generally do not support this. Monastics tend to be a thorn in the side of bishops. The EP recently tried to put his thumb on Athos and was thumped pretty badly for it.

Seraphim

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Andreas,

It is very good to have you here amidst the conversation. A very warm welcome to the discussion community.

In your post, you wrote:


I believe the AOA and GOA wouldn't agree with you on this statement on the MP being the Mother Church in the US. Apparently all three sides claim to have come to the States at the same time :-)

This would certainly be the case as of today, where the situation is such that most jurisdictions in the USA (apart from the OCA) claim one or another of the local churches as their guardian or parental church.

However, even the AOA and the GOA will agree that the Moscow Patriarchate was the original 'mother church' of Orthodoxy in America, if pressed on the facts of canonical establishment. It really wasn't until the Revolution that divisions among the Church in America began, and ethnic groups within the Orthodox community began 'reporting back' to the local churches of their various homelands. That habit became engrained in the American Orthodox ethos very quickly, to the point that nowadays it seems 'normal' to many.

But the history of Orthodoxy in America began as it has with most other countries in Orthodox history: with one local church taking on the care of the new communities. This local body was the Moscow Patriarchate, purely and simply, and whether one was Greek, Syrian or other by birth, if you were in America and were Orthodox, you were canonically under the Moscow Patriarchate. Yes, Greeks did arrive in America (with respect to Orthodoxy) rather simultaneously to Russians, but the situation of canonical jurisdiction was clear.

This quite obviously isn't the way it is today. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

INXC, Matthew

[Vlad Benea]

Owen, in your earlier posts, you used a couple of time the term "Episcopalians". Could I ask you what does it mean? I couldn't find it anywhere.

In Christ,
Vlad

[Andreas Prodromou]

Dear Owen:

That was a quick reply :-) Going through your post I kind of got the feeling that you might have thought that I was attacking/judging American society. Just in case you thought of that, I'd like to state that that was not the case. I was only referring to the situation within the Orthodox Church. And the Church is made up not only of Americans (hyphenated and non-hyphenated ones) but also of others who wouldn't even by called Americans. And since you brought up the point about Greeks, from my experience (I've attended parishes falling under different jurisdictions) I wouldn't say that anti-clericalism is a predominantly Greek trait in the States or that the people who complain are mostly leftists. Far from it.

You also brought up a recurring theme in this drive for independence from "foreign" Churches, namely the money issue. Are there any actual numbers on the money that actually get sent overseas to Mother Churches? Also, I don't see what's wrong with Churches in the States sending money to other Churches overseas. I mean they are not just throwing money away but helping other Orthodox Churches in need. This thing about money reminds me of the Church of Cyprus. Without the nonstop financial/technical/personel support of Cyprus the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Jerusalem might not exist today. I once asked a friend of mine who works for the Kykkos Monastery Research Centre if there've been any complaints about all the money that get sent overseas on a regular basis and he pretty much said "No, why should there be any?" And assisting Alexandria and Jerusalem is only a fraction of the assistance (not just financial) they provide to other Orthodox Churches. To sum up, I don't think that money issues, or actively helping other Orthodox jurisdictions, are a valid point for separation.

You also mentioned the issue of indigenous hierarchy. But aren't most of the current hierarchs of the top three jurisdictions (ITO size) either Americans or have spent most of their lives in the US? I believe all of OCA's bishops are American born as well as quite a few of the AOA and GOA ones. And they are the ones running the show on a day to day basis. I'd personally rather have at least some clergy (at all levels) with "international" experience/background. I've found, in general, such people to be more... let's say "enlightened" (this is probably a bad word choice but let's just use it for lack of a better one right now) then ones who haven't seen beyond the horizon.

BTW what's the thing you are referring to about the EP and Mount Athos? Is it about the situation with Esfigmenou monastery?

Have a nice week,

Andreas
ps. Your second to the last paragraph is right on the mark not just for the States but for many other countries as well. You could just switch America and Americans with Belgium Belgians (where I currently live) and it would be fully applicable.

[M.C. Steenberg]

I think that Andreas' implied point in his last post is of great importance: the maintenance of ties with the 'old world', or the older local churches, is not the negative state of affairs that it is sometimes made out to be.

There seems to be a good deal of sentiment with regard to such ties, of the air that they are coercive, controlling and proscriptive against liberty. This is not entirely surprising, especially within a Western context, where 'liberty' and 'freedom' are cardinal concepts in everyday life.

But this is not the way of the Church. The urge to throw off ties to the older, established churches demonstrates, to my mind, more a lack of patience and obedience than a whole-hearted desire for growth. To be connected to an older patriarchate is not an insult or denigration to a newer church: it is a fitting tie that provides guidance, support, aid and wisdom to a new body that must, simply out of necessity, take a long time to be able to offer such things to itself.

Maintaining ties to the older churches in healthy, cooperative and spiritually obedient ways would do a good deal, I think, to combat the rise of secularism within the Church in the New World that is one of its more substantial challenges.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

Dear Mathew,

Your point would have more force behind it if indeed America was receiving support and wisdom from old world patriarchs. I'm not sure I see that. In some dioceses, the Americans have contempt for the bishops they send over anyway (I've especially seen that amongst the SErbs). I don't see that changing. And in some dioceses, I see dark motives behind the patriarchs' desire to maintain control. Would that the relationship really did lead to a return to tradition in the U.S. But that's not happening. I basically believe that most parishes in the U.S. will go the way of the Episcopalians, with a very tiny minority veering toward the Russian Synodal approach. I don't see anything stopping these long term trends, certainly not the Eastern hierarchs.

[Owen Jones]

Thanks Andreas and Mathew for your important points. I confess to being a cynic about much of the hierarchy today, but it is more a concern I think about the "system," (a stupid slogan to be sure)than anyone individually. We have a very holy man who is the Bishop of Atlanta who is from Greece, for example, and the Bishop of Denver is an American and a very fine, traditional, pastor. But let's face it, money is always their primary concern, and making givers, especially large givers, happy. If a local priest has a conflict with his parish, the solution usually is formulated by the big givers to the parish. Regarding the EP, I have heard numerous, credible reports of his extortion of money and gifts, perhaps a kind of traditional old world sort of thing, but unseemly from my point of view. I won't even comment on the Antiochian Patriarch, other than to say that he has learned well from his political sponsors.

My concern is not liberty. It's simply that Americans are going to have to learn how to sink or swim eventually on their own, and I don't see any evidence to speak of that Old World Bishops are having an impact on U.S. attitudes anyway. When the EP came over here, he made a point of meeting with every left wing interest group in the country. I'm not aware of anything that he said or did in terms of teaching Americans to be more faithful to our traditions. If he did, it has not had any impact. AT best, he was sending mixed messages: Get with the modern political agenda seemed to be the most emphatic point he made while here.

[Rev. Dn. Raphael Barberg]

Happy Pentacost!

Such negativity!

"Oh Lord save thy people and bless thine inheritance! Granting to thy people, victory over all their enemies! (Even when we are our own enemy) And by the power of thy cross, preserving thine estate!"

Rev. Dn. Raphael Barberg Orthodox first, Antiochian second

[Rev. Dn. Raphael Barberg]

But the canons aside, such actions are, in a practical sense, counter-productive to Church unity in America. Granting autonomy to the jurisdictions will only reinforce the disunity of the Church in the USA, and further hinder any sort of rapproachment between the varying jurisdictions that could eventually lead to a truly American Church.

Matthew,

But is it not true, that the bishops of the majority of the American churches are outspoken in their desire for union (see the Ligonier proclamation)? Is it not the mother countries that have resisted American unity, perhaps in fear of lost revenue?

Dcn. Raphael

[Rev. Dn. Raphael Barberg]

However, even the AOA and the GOA will agree that the Moscow Patriarchate was the original 'mother church' of Orthodoxy in America, if pressed on the facts of canonical establishment

Indeed, this is what I was taught in the St. Stephen's course, the Antiochian Archdiocese training porgram for clergy. I think my patron, St. Raphael of Brooklyn is a good example of the true Orthodox Spririt we need in our hierarchs. Although his primary mission was to the Arabs of the diaspora, He was ordained as bishop of the then unified American Chruch, under St. Tikhon (soon to be Patriarch of Moscow). Certainly, the even of his glorification was an excellent moment of Orthodox unity.

Dcn. Raphael

[Owen Jones]

Dear Vlad,

The Episcopal Church is the American version of the Anglican Church, or Church of England. It is fond of ordaining lesbian communists, supporting the Sandanistas and other violent left wing causes around the world, believes communion with God to be superstition, that we are all alienated and cut off from God in the world and that is our common bond of fellowship. By coming together and admitting our alienation, that empowers us to throw off the yoke of patriarchal society and create a brave new world without sin. Really. I wish I were kidding.

I know this from very close observation, and when I begin to see evidence of this same sort of thing in Orthodox hierarchs, I know the same writing is on the wall.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Raphael,

One of the saving graces of Orthodoxy today is the gift of sanctity that we still see and recognize in contemporary saints. And the way in which St. Raphael's sanctity was proven is inspiring -- his incorrupt body. No need for an intellectual or academic discussion about it. It's there to see.

Regarding negativity, I confess to enjoying the "negative" texts in Scripture that most people gloss over. I find them spiritually refreshing and humbling.

Seraphim

[Andreas Prodromou]

Dear Owen,

If I may add a couple more comments. The hierarchs, and all of the clergy for that matter, are there for everyone not just for individuals or groups that I or you or somebody else approves of. Let's not forget that bishops in particular have to be (whether we like it or not) politicians/diplomats in addition to spiritual guides. And if one considers the endless 'wars' that are taking place in the Orthodox world many of them have to be politicians 90% of their time. As for the credible sources... well, 99% of the time I wouldn't take what they say seriously. There's usually some alterior motive behind these stuff.

Dear Matthew and Raphael:

What you stated about the Moscow Patriarchate is what I also new but apparently there's a new twist to this story (this is from an OCA member who heard it from somebody attending a SCOBA meeting so I don't know how much it got modified along the way :-)). Apparently during this meeting an OCA representative tried to bring up the subject of OCA having primacy in North America since they can trace there origins back to the Russian missionaries in Alaska. Apparently the AOA and GOA representatives presented some documents that pretty much showed that when the Russians started moving into N.A. the Greeks and the Antiochians also started holding services in New York. As a result of this the discussion was dropped. I don't know how accurate this is (I hope it's not the result of another credible source :-)) but I'd be interested to hear from anybody who might know more on this issue.

Andreas

[sinjin smithe]

I am new to this discussion but I am intrigued by what Owen said.

Dear Vlad,

The Episcopal Church is the American version of the Anglican Church, or Church of England. It is fond of ordaining lesbian communists, supporting the Sandanistas and other violent left wing causes around the world, believes communion with God to be superstition, that we are all alienated and cut off from God in the world and that is our common bond of fellowship. By coming together and admitting our alienation, that empowers us to throw off the yoke of patriarchal society and create a brave new world without sin. Really. I wish I were kidding.

I know this from very close observation, and when I begin to see evidence of this same sort of thing in Orthodox hierarchs, I know the same writing is on the wall.

What is the evidence that you see in the Orthodox hierarchs. Your comments about Orthodoxy in America going the way of the episcopalians gives me fear.

[Bob Nicholas]

Dear Owen Jones,

It's simply that Americans are going to have to learn how to sink or swim eventually on their own,...

Forgive me, but it seems the OCA has been "swimming" on their own for about thirty years now, with the blessings of and continuing close ties to the MP.

The Antiochian archdiocese in North America is not far behind.

I know this from very close observation, and when I begin to see evidence of this same sort of thing in Orthodox hierarchs, I know the same writing is on the wall.

This sounds very grave. Are you just being alarmist?

Bob