African Orthodox Church?

[M. Markewich]

There is a Church that exists in various pockets in Africa and America called the African Orthodox Church. They trace their apostolic succession to a Syrian Oriental Orthodox Patriarch from the late 1800s. Within their jurisdiction they have a Church in San Fransisco that commemorates John Coltrane as a saint. http://coltranechurch.org/

Now what I've found is that the bishop who was ordained by the OO Patriarch ordained the first bishop of the African Orthodox Church. His name is Joseph René Vilatte. According to wikipedia, "Joseph René Vilatte (January 24, 1854 - July 8, 1929) was, at different times, member of the Roman Catholic Church, a Presbyterian, an Episcopalian, a Russian Orthodox, a Jacobite, and an Old Catholic cleric."

I hope it wouldn't be surprising if I said that I am just plain astounded. Does anyone know about this Church? I especially would like to know if it is recognized as valid by the OO community.

[John Charmley]

Dear Matt,

I suspect that Peter Farrington will know the answer to your question. Vilatte's story is well-covered in authoritative manner in Abba Seraphim's Flesh of Our Brethren (http://www.lulu.com/content/215239).

Of course, the Coptic, Ethiopian and Eritrean Churches are all African Orthodox, and through the former, Orthodoxy has been established in Africa for as long as it has been established anywhere.

Mind you, much as I like the music of John Coltrane, it seems a little far-fetched to make him a saint, so I suspect the Church you mention is not recognised by other Oriental Orthodox Churches - but stand open to correction.


In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Matt,

I suspect that Peter Farrington will know the answer to your question. Vilatte's story is well-covered in authoritative manner in Abba Seraphim's Flesh of Our Brethren (http://www.lulu.com/content/215239).

Of course, the Coptic, Ethiopian and Eritrean Churches are all African Orthodox, and through the former, Orthodoxy has been established in Africa for as long as it has been established anywhere.

Mind you, much as I like the music of John Coltrane, it seems a little far-fetched to make him a saint, so I suspect the Church you mention is not recognised by other Oriental Orthodox Churches - but stand open to correction.


In Christ,

John

I remember a number of years ago when I first had access to a friend's computer we typed into Google, Orthodox or Orthodox Christian. It was amazing (and funny at times) how many 'orthodox churches' there are out there compared to the real thing. It seemed that every small town from Tennessee to Mexico City has its own resident metropolitan or archbishop.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Athanasius Abdullah]

This Church is a vagante sect that is certainly not recognised by any Oriental Orthodox Church.


They trace their apostolic succession to a Syrian Oriental Orthodox Patriarch from the late 1800s.

I assume this so-called Patriarch (who the website refers to as Ignatius Peter III) was himself a vagante Patriarch, as there was no Ignatius Peter III in the late 1800's according to the Syrian Orthodox tradition.

One need only observe the fact they have Jazz liturgical services to immediately get the impression that there's something wrong here...

In XC
-Athanasius

[M. Markewich]

I am relieved, Athanasius!!! I read the whole article on wikipedia about Vilatte. I couldn't believe that it was real. It seemed like something that would make a good movie. And then the whole story is topped off by a jazz saint.

Father Raphael, after reading about this Church, I felt willing to give an Arian a hearty handshake!!!

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Athanasius

He was Mar Ignatius Peter IV and was most certainly patriarch of Antioch. He consecrated both Jules Ferrette, the missionary bishop who established my own British Orthodox Church, and Rene Vilatte, who had a vision of establishing an Orthodox Western Church in the US. He had also authorised the consecration of other Western Rite bishops, both in Goa and in Hungary, and was a visionary man.

It is not surprising that such fragile plants in the West should suffer all manner of obstacles, and certainly the Villatte mission tended to fall apart and a great many claim to be his descendants without having much of an orthodox faith. But this is not always the case.

The Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate has united to herself two groups from these scattered communities, and these have become the French Coptic Orthodox Church and the British Orthodox Church. The Malankara Orthodox have also united a similarly serious group with themselves in the US. Even the Milan Synod sought to be united with the Syrian Orthodox Church.

I think that if the established Churches are very careful then it is entirely appropriate that those groups which seek to be Orthodox from among the 'independent' sector should become Orthodox were possible. It is wonderful that the Coptic Orthodox Church especially has shown the vision to open up such opportunities to some such groups.

In the present day it seems that there are as many 'vagante' groups deriving from Eastern Orthodoxy as from the Syrian Orthodox, and I certainly find myself confused as to ROCIE, ROCA, ROCOR and a great many others, so we should perhaps be a little understanding towards those others who over the past 100 years have also experienced schism and splintering. It is actually very difficult for an isolated group to preserve coherence without becoming a sect or even a cult, it is in the way of humanity that such groups tend to disintegrate. Some groups may be rather amusing, but what are 'canonical' Orthodox doing to reach them? I know that in the UK the BOC is dealing with several such groups, and it is necessary to be careful, but many of these groups are close to a serious view of Orthodoxy and only need it presented to them in an attractive rather than a sectarian manner.

I should also add that to my knowledge the African Orthodox Church, when it was established, had a serious orthodox basis and was a response to the lack of any interest among existing Orthodox immigrants in reaching black people. How it developed later on is another story. But it did not begin as something outrageous but as meeting a need to reach African people in the US.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter,

Many thanks for a post that was both informative and eirenic.

It is easy enough to make a little fun out of this, but we do better I suspect, and we walk in the Lord's way if we ponder your statement:

... the African Orthodox Church, when it was established, had a serious orthodox basis and was a response to the lack of any interest among existing Orthodox immigrants in reaching black people. How it developed later on is another story. But it did not begin as something outrageous but as meeting a need to reach African people in the US.

How has the Orthodox Church reached out to African-Americans? Should it be an occasion for incredulity or shame that such a group has moved in the direction described; sheep without a shepherd are apt to stray.

The model Peter describes here:

The Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate has united to herself two groups from these scattered communities, and these have become the French Coptic Orthodox Church and the British Orthodox Church. The Malankara Orthodox have also united a similarly serious group with themselves in the US. Even the Milan Synod sought to be united with the Syrian Orthodox Church
seems much more in the way of Our Lord. It is easy to be a little like the proud Pharisee here; perhaps, instead, we should be humbled by our own inaction?

As one who is seeking the way home to Orthodoxy, the number of routes with an 'R' in them is a little bewildering, especially when the tone in which some of them address other Orthodox is taken into account. What I know about the Ecumenical Patriarch is not much, but whatever has the poor fellow done to deserve the vials of wrath emptied on him by some very Holy Monks; and what does it say to outsiders about 'obedience'? I am not taking sides or casting aspersions - I'm sure everyone involved in these things is sure they are acting in the best interests of the Church as they see it - but for someone looking for the road, the map has become a little confusing. It is, at times, as though internal dialogue is so interesting to those inside Orthodoxy that the great commission to spread the Word seems of secondary interest against the all-consuming passion of speaking the truth to each other in a very blunt fashion. Meanwhile, in the great outside world, the hungry sheep look up - and are fed stones.

And elsewhere, quietly, there are those Orthodox who reach out their hands to offer assistance to those stumbling around in the darkness and the despair. Peter is so right about the tendency of isolated groups to develop the characteristics he describes; hence the need not to isolate them, if at all possible.

Peter's question here haunts me:


Some groups may be rather amusing, but what are 'canonical' Orthodox doing to reach them?

Sometimes I have seen the Church likened to the Ark - are we so preoccupied with the seating arrangements in the Ark that we forget its purpose? To change my metaphor a little, do we sometimes resemble the passengers on the Titanic arguing over the location of the deckchairs as the iceberg hoves into view?

Peter, your words have given me great pause for thought; what is it I am doing, and what is it we do as individuals or as part of the Church to reach out to those who seek? Thank you for your thoughts.

In Christ,

John

[M. Markewich]

You're right. I put myself on the high horse and thought it was appropriate to gawk, but I was gawking at people that God loved enough to die for. I'm sorry.

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Matt

It is easy to take the mickey out of others, and I have certainly been guilty. But as God works on me to knock off some of my rough edges I find that I am more willing to look for the positive in others.

What are they seeking? What is it in the Christian Faith which this particular group is seeking to bear witness to, even if in an unbalanced way. None of this makes these groups Orthodox, but I should be able to respectfully and thankfully commend that which is Orthodox in their life and aspirations.

Just last week someone elsewhere posted a poem that had been published in a Quaker magazine. It was a good poem, and it prompted me to look around some of the major Society of Friends websites. At first I saw only the differences between the Friends and Orthodoxy, but after some time of study I realised that actually what was being described as the goal of Friend's understanding of Christianity had very real echoes in Orthodoxy. But it required a humility in me to listen to what they were saying, instead of assuming from a brief look at Wiki that I knew everything.

I know lots of the small independent 'orthodox' and 'catholic' groups, and some of them are frankly not Churches at all but fronts for dangerous men, or men (mostly) with very un-Christian agendas. But there are many whose adventures in 'orthodoxy' and 'catholicity' have been prompted rather by weaknesses in our own Orthodox and Catholic communities, or at least by the failure of our Orthodox and Catholic communities to communicate Good News adequately.

Of course there is also pride, wilfulness, obstinacy, ignorance and lots of other weaknesses in these groups, but if we can find the places where we have something in common, and if we can discover how to communicate our Orthodox Faith as the fulfillment of what they are looking for rather confusedly, then I think it would be a good thing and would work towards the reconciliation of many of these groups, and of course towards a more energetic missionary effort by Orthodox in the West.

Peter

[Olga]

It's bad enough that this sect has hijacked the adjective "orthodox" to its title, and appointed a non-saint as its patron, on top of this, their church store stocks a number of false "icons", including a particularly disturbing image of John Coltrane enthroned .....

www.coltranechurch.org/store.html (http://www.coltranechurch.org/store.html)

[Peter Farrington]

Lots of groups use the word Orthodox, I don't see it as hijacking anything. No one can trademark an adjective. If 'Orthodox' Orthodox want to keep the use of the word then we need to present our faith more attractively because many of these groups believe that THEY are the ones who have the spirit of orthodoxy while they think that WE are the ones who have 'hijacked' the word without living it.

And if we seek to prevent the African Orthodox Church using the word, then should the Synod in Resistance be allowed to use it, since ROCOR itself now states that they are outside the Orthodox Church.

If we are truly Orthodox then we need to show it by the way we live, and the way we act towards others, we can't do it by trademarking an adjective.

Peter

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Lots of groups use the word Orthodox, I don't see it as hijacking anything. No one can trademark an adjective. If 'Orthodox' Orthodox want to keep the use of the word then we need to present our faith more attractively because many of these groups believe that THEY are the ones who have the spirit of orthodoxy while they think that WE are the ones who have 'hijacked' the word without living it.

And if we seek to prevent the African Orthodox Church using the word, then should the Synod in Resistance be allowed to use it, since ROCOR itself now states that they are outside the Orthodox Church.

If we are truly Orthodox then we need to show it by the way we live, and the way we act towards others, we can't do it by trademarking an adjective.

Peter

Concerning this an important distinction needs to be kept in mind. Orthodox is an adjective of relatively late origin compared let's say to the word catholic. Clearly it arose in the context of the Church presenting its own teachings and practice as correct in the face of various distortions.

Consistent with this various resisting groups employ the word Orthodox to proclaim or witness that they are maintaining the correct path in comparison to 'world Orthodoxy'. But mainstream Orthodoxy equally uses the same word to maintain that it also is fully in accord within the Church's path even if choosing somewhat of a different way.

In this case one basically has to discern which path is most faithful to the word orthodox. But throughout the Church's history it has always been so. It is impossible to disconnect discernment & choice from being Orthodox without the latter in fact losing its meaning.

A second use of the word orthodox (in a Christian context) however is clearly those who interpret the word to mean something which is exotic or 'eastern.' This is quite different from the above for often besides the way over the top shenanigans found among such groups you will find dogmatic chaos. In other words among groups like this there is little sense of dogmatic rigourism as among resisting groups but much more often dogmatic syncretism. Among some of these groups there are quite a few which have clearly gone over the edge into something that ranges in between very unbalanced & deranged.

In any case, the distinction here is not just academic since in all of these situations we see the great need for discernment. Discernment however is something positive we bring to the table and is inseparable from being Orthodox.



In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter,

Thank you for putting this question into this perspective.

Of course, all these groups call themselves 'Orthodox', and, as Fr. Raphael indicates, all claim that they are following the correct path. How fortunate then that Our Lord understood us so well and made the road wide enough for all these people to think they are the only ones on it.

You seem to me spot on Peter when you write:

If we are truly Orthodox then we need to show it by the way we live, and the way we act towards others

There are times when I wonder how good we are at carrying out that simple injunction in John 13:34-35

34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.

By that last test, would the world know we are His disciples? As St. Paul reminded the Romans [Romans 13:8]

8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.

Why do we seem to find this so hard to do?

Remember what Our Lord told us in Matthew 18:21-22

21 Then Peter came to Him and said, Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?
22 Jesus said to him, I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.


In Christ,

John

[Monk Symeon]

Hi Athanasius

[...]

The Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate has united to herself two groups from these scattered communities, and these have become the French Coptic Orthodox Church and the British Orthodox Church. The Malankara Orthodox have also united a similarly serious group with themselves in the US. Even the Milan Synod sought to be united with the Syrian Orthodox Church.

[...] Peter

I am aware that I am responding to an outdated thread however, having just seen this Board and being new, I wish to comment.

Every group, community and Church has its detractors. For the so-called Milan Synod there is no exception. It has been an oft-time error due to unlabled photos on the internet to accuse the Synod of Milan as courting the non-Chalcedonian. It was not so. It was a group of Syrians who approached this Old Calendar Church HQ'd in Milan, Italy. Their talks failed because the Syrians could not get from the Milan Synod what it was after. Sorry, I do not know any details beyond this.

Respectfully,
Papa Symeon