www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Old news?

Ahh. The political agenda comes out.

It is Orthodoxy's business, not mine, as to how it organizes itself, but I would be willing to bet good money that a supranational but less than universal jurisdiction is doomed to failure.

K.

Peter --

Haven't we just, then, expanded the concept from strict national boundary to larger "ethnic-based" Patriarchates (ie, the three Rusii together under one Kievan/Kyivan Patriarchate)? I think that's replacing one problem with another one -- ie, instead of national churches, you have ethnic-based churches -- an improvement over base nationalism, but in the end probably not much better, and simply a different distortion.

Call my a cynic, but I honestly don't think there's much hope in purging nationalism from the Orthodox Churches while nation-state-ism remains the raison d'etre of our ecclesiastical organization. Unless we reorganize ourselves, we will very much tend to represent our national interests. And whether or not we utilize the EP to achieve our national goals does not alter the fact that we are pursuing, after all, our *national* goals.

The interesting thing is that the regional patriarchates of the first millenium were true centers, but multiethnic ones with multicultural influences on them. Constantinople was this for a time as well, until it became progressively more exclusively Greek. That's one of the reasons why Metr. Philip's proposal is not so flippant after all -- New York City *can* serve that melding role perhaps better than anywhere else at the moment (and certainly better than anyplace in the 'Orthodox world').

Brendan

Drogi Panie Aleksandrze,

Thanks for congratulations, but instead of making me a Pole (as an Ukrainian from Poland, I am very sensible on this - just like
no Scotsman likes to be called "English") you may
look at our newly-updated parish website:

http://www.mateusz.pl/goscie/grekat

where you can also find my personal corner with short bio & address data, links to articles in Ukrainian and Polish)

http://www.mateusz.pl/goscie/grekat/psalmist.html


and the pictures of mine (in the new cassock made in Kostomoloty, southern Podlachia - http://www.unici.prv.pl )

http://www.mateusz.pl/goscie/grekat/lektor.html

and of my wife Margaret, too:

http://www.mateusz.pl/goscie/grekat/foto2.html

Enjoy yourself!

Sincerely,

Reader Peter/Petro, just like you're Alex/Oles'.

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Piotr Siwicki ]

Dear Brendan,

Apologies accepted. No big deal, in fact.
As to your points: Athos makes some sense, but others places you mention - hardly.
However, if one would try to follow the Athos pattern...Rus' Athos has been the Pechersk Lavra in...Kyiv.

Sincerely,
Reader Peter

PS. Pec you mention wasn't in fact "transnational".

Dear Reader Petro,

Sorry about that!

I am of mixed (up) Ukrainian and Polish background myself, although the Ukrainian side seems to want to dominate . . .

I too love Lypynsky and I am a monarchist as well, like our Serge!

Can you believe Brendan on this point? He still insists he's right.

But I am not going to upset him at the beginning of Christmas-time.

Alex

Go New York, Go New York Go!!

Dear Reader Petro,

I too believe that Brendan's points have much validity (hee, hee).

But returning to the real world, culture and even nationalism will continue to play an important part in church life of whatever denomination.

The good people in the U.S. are nationalists, but they call themselves "patriots" (fine by me too).

Where does the ethnocentricity end?

I like Serge's suggestion of New York City as the site of a future Orthodox Patriarchate.

The only problem is that Synods would have to be held in low-lying buildings to ensure full episcopal attendance.

Alex

Mor --

Maybe we can have an Oriental Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch based on White Plains -- at least that's close to St. Vladimir's.

Alex --

Just disagree with the nationalist agenda across the board. I think an autocephalous Ukranian church will happen, but won't contribute one iota to improving Orthodox ecclesiology in practice, and will further undermine our position on this issue vis-a-vis Catholicism.

Peter --

My point on Pec was that it was a non-cosmopolitan Patriarchate -- but, as you point out, and as I alluded to as well when I mentioned it, Pec was an ethno-national Patriarchate and never intended to have a multinational role. As I mentioned to Alex, and have mentioned elsewhere previously, a Ukranian Church is probably an inevitability, but will nevertheless be harmful for Orthodoxy as a whole.

Brendan

My dear fellow, Brendan,

(Isn't that a terrible way to begin a post?)

As for the Orthodox and nationalism, yes you are right that that is going to keep happening.

I disagree that it will hurt Orthodoxy.

One of the glories of the Orthodox Church (I suggested to Joyce Scott that she work with you to join the OCA, so be nice and agree with me a little)is the way the various cultures of Europe, Asia and Africa have inculturated themselves in the respective Churches, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox.

Phyletism is wrong, it exists, but it is still wrong. But so is its polar opposite. And the idea that if one places a patriarchate outside the historic centres and in say, North America, even though you didn't suggest this, simply means that we North Americans are still delusional about us being "above" what is going on the world and also in terms of "culture" being what everyone else has, but we're too cosmopolitan to have.

It is not only unrealistic, but the idea would be scoffed at by most of world Orthodoxy.

And Catholicism, for that matter.

The idea that Catholicism is somehow more "universalistic" than Orthodoxy is simply not true.

The Pope is VERY Polish with a capital "D."

If anything, he has brought his Polish-ness to the Church and enriched it with its values.

He has also encouraged the development of cultural consciousness in other Churches. He did this in Ukraine and elsewhere. There is nothing wrong with that and this is reality in contemporary times.

My disagreement here is not theological and in any event you know Schmemann and Meyendorff better than I.

It is sociological and even if I were not a believer, I would find this proposition to be rather incredulous.

But you know what I think on this, I know you don't like it and I we know that we still like each other anyway.

Have a Merry (Gregorian and Armenian) Christmas,

(If I ever wanted to join the OCA, could I think about this issue as I do and still be a member in good standing - or would I have to think as you?)

Alex

Alex --

"As for the Orthodox and nationalism, yes you are right that that is going to keep happening. I disagree that it will hurt Orthodoxy."

I think that's where we disagree.

"Phyletism is wrong, it exists, but it is still wrong."

Right, but that's inextricably linked with the idea of a "national church".

"He has also encouraged the development of cultural consciousness in other Churches. He did this in Ukraine and elsewhere. There is nothing wrong with that and this is reality in contemporary times."

Culture, yes, but when culture is bound together with nation and packaged into one ecclesiastical jurisdiction, that's a bad mixture, in my opinion. In any case, it leads to a splintering of the Church -- jurisdictionally. We agree that the church should be culturally diverse, I think -- where we disagree is whether, and how, this cultural diversity should be reflected in ecclesiastical jurisdiction. To take your example, the Latin Church manages to be culturally diverse without having multiple culturo-national jurisdictions. Why does the Ukranian Church need to have its own ecclesiastical jurisdiction in order to express its own culture in religious terms?

"My disagreement here is not theological and in any event you know Schmemann and Meyendorff better than I."

No, it's not a theological issue, but it does have an impact on ecclesiology.

Brendan

Brendan: Good ideas, all! What a boost for Minsk — from relative obscurity to center of the Rus' Christian world!

I enjoyed your site, Peter.

http://oldworldrus.com

Dear Brendan,

Ah, but the "Latin Church" is not the monolith we've often taken it to be in North America where our experience of it is one jurisdiction (often controlled by Irish bishops, God bless them) with culturally diverse memberships.

Yet, even in North America, the Hispanic and African-American Catholics have managed to develop traditions and even "Rites" of their own. Historically, they have even pushed for the declaration of patriarchates for their people.

You've hit on the crux of the matter, jurisdiction as a way to express culture and spirituality.

And you ask why do you need one to have the other?

Just as you told Dr. John that his concerns were "typically Greek," so too your question is "typically American."

The historic experience of martyrdom in the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches is what confirmed this form of religious/cultural experience.

In the absence of their national institutions, having been brought under various imperial regimes including the Turkish Yoke, the Orthodox Churches became bastions of their respective countries' cultural and national aspirations.

The Orthodox Churches became, for all intents and purposes, the "nation-state" of these peoples.

Religion, cultural preservation and national survival all came into one within albeit historic patriarchates and churches such as at Constantinople, Kyiv, Georgia and Armenia (yes, Armenia!).

Culture for these countries is integrally related to the national life of the people. Call it "nationalism" if you will, but I would prefer to leave it on the level of "national" values and way of life.

Those cultural groups that, for one reason or another, submitted to a jurisdiction that was not "their own" soon found themselves the object of assimilationist pressures, just as the Orthodox Churches of North America would find themselves on the slippery road toward assimilation to mainstream American values if they accepted a "Pan-American Orthodox" jurisdiction.

They could have close relationships, as many do. But so many Orthodox Churches are rooted in an "Old World" tradition that is hundreds and hundreds of years old.

Their jurisdictions rooted in the "Old World" countries from whence they came continue and will continue.

Breaking them up,if that were possible, to create some sort of artificial and culturally-neutral superstructure would cause many more problems than it would solve.

As for whether this is ideal Orthodoxy under canonical circumstances, well, those canonicals were written in another time about socio-cultural circumstances that have changed substantially.

Again, what you say may be relevant for North America.

Although I just don't see Orthodox peoples wanting to give up their jurisdictions etc.

In the Ukrainian Catholic context, having one's own jurisdiction under a Patriarchate is even more of an issue.

It is because we don't have our own jurisdiction that we found that we were increasingly controlled and told what to do, even when it went against our canonical Eastern tradition.

Your position is understandable. But I think you tend to be a little condescending toward this whole jurisdictional-ethnic thing, which isn't the first time I've encountered it.

Your perspective is definitely theological, but, like that of Schmemann and Meyendorff, (and you are in good company), it lacks a socio-historical realism that, again, I have found in other theologians and have disagreed with as well.

Alex

Yes, that it is...there was a time briefly that I entertained taking some classes there, since it is relatively close to home...perhaps I will sometime in the near future (I wonder what they have in the way of summer classes?)...I wouldn't be the first Indian there.

Dear Friends,

Yes, as long as it is in the U.S., any and all such future patriarchates can be free of cultural and national narrowness and inclusiveness.

Sheeshhhhhh!

Alex