www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Continuing Turmoil in OCA

The goal was to have an American Orthodox Church. This idea could still be achieved. And from what I have heard, the Antiochians in the U.S. seem to be achieving it rather well.

However, there are plenty of other Americans who are Orthodox and who prefer to maintain their traditions of their ethnic ancestry too: for example, some of the Russians, Ukrainians, Serbs, Greeks, etc.

-- John

As I said, I've not seen The Orthodox Church in quite a few years. But a word of caution: "readership" and "subscribers" are apt to be two different numbers. Taking the higher figure, though, 30,000 is not particularly impressive either.

Fr. Serge

The goal of an American Orthodox Church is not necessarily impossible or unrealistic, nor is that goal unreconcilable with the desire of people to retain their natioanal/ethnic identity and their links to the Mother Churches in Europe or the Middle East. Much could be done to promote this goal.

Just for a few sample suggestions: it would be sensible to explore with the Mother Churches what sort of structures in the USA would be acceptable and how might they function in practice. Part of the problem with the OCA's approach was that autocephaly arrived as what might be termed a coup d'�glise - a proclamation that most of the Local Churches outside the Soviet orbit did not accept. That did not augur well for the future.

The whole problem of what is often called the "Orthodox Diaspora" is a matter which eventually the pleroma of the Church must address; having X number of competing jurisdictions is not a satisfactory solution.

I have some further thoughts, but that will do for the moment.

Fr. Serge

Father, bless.

What you point out is both the benefit and the tough nut to crack of the current situation.

Anymore, I don't think there will be a single Orthodox jurisdiction for the USA. But, there is only one Orthodox Church. Hence, maybe the different jurisdictions of Orthodoxy in America will better co-ordinate with each other.

But what the OCA's role in American Orthodoxy will be, I don't know anymore.

-- John

Looking at the OCA website and the listing of the parishes in the various dioceses, it seems that a figure of 25-30,000 seems reasonable. Many parishes (especially those in Alaska) are listed as parishes, but there is no priest assigned, nor any information about services, organizations, educational activities, etc. This seems to indicate that the parish is a traditional one, established a century or more ago, that has services on a monthly basis (if that) when a 'circuit rider' priest arrives.

The people make do with typika services or nothing. But they maintain their faith.

As for the European background Orthodox, with the 'sliding' borders of the past 200 years, it is understandable the peoples' sense of identity exists in a grey area. Borders, language patterns, cultural practices, jurisdictional adherence and political identities served to determine an individual's place in the world. And the craziness in the U.S. further muddled the picture. (I have a few OCA friends, who - after a few Stoli's - admitted in secret that they were baptized and chrismated Greek Catholic - BIG secret!!) And it's no big secret that in many rural areas that whatever "Blessed is the Kingdom" priest came through town, celebrated liturgy, baptized the children, heard confessions, performed the marriage ceremonies and blessed the graves of the departed. No big whoop. It was done "right". And that is what mattered.

Among the current Orthodox jurisdictions, perhaps only the Greeks have a serious commitment to being Greek Orthodox since there are very large numbers of the Greeks in the Americas and there is a constant influx of immigrants. (It doesn't hurt that if a child is born of Greek parents in the "outland", he/she can claim Greek citizenship - and this perpetuates the Greek identity.)

The Ukrainians have a somewhat similar situation in ethnic identity, but there are several legitimate competing Ukrianian jurisdictions that ask for allegiance, both in Ukraine and in the diaspora. ("We love Moscow" - "We hate Moscow" - "Kiev was first and therefore the heir of the tomos" - "Moscow has more resources/$$$" - "Russians killed Ukrainians" - "Moscow saved Ukrainians", etc., etc., etc. And then there's the Ukrainian Catholics who screw up the equation. [If the Ukrainians ever united, they would be unstoppable in evangelizing the 'Slavonia'.]

So, in America, the question is: can somebody/anybody produce a truly American form of Orthodoxy that casts off the stultifying effects of Euro identity? The Greeks clearly will not do so. Nor should one expect it - there are just too many Greeks around to transform into 'total Americans'. And there are more and more coming every day from the old country.

The Orthodox Church in America seems to be so set in proving their Muscovite heritage that even their English language services are "Great Russian" in character - and they use Russian vestments, Russian melodies, OCS labelled icons, etc., and all their prelates use Russified names even though most of them are Western European background. So much for that "American Orthodox".

The Antiochians seem to be the most fluid, even to the point of allowing "Western Rite" parishes that are Orthodox in theology and canonicity but otherwise as American as "John Smith". Unfortunately, they brought in "groups" with various checkered histories and I think that this has hurt their ability to be seen as 'trustworthy' to other Orthodox groups. The folks who came in appear to have been more enamoured of the outward signs of Orthodoxy than of the ecclesiological reality of the Antiochian Church.

The Melkites do a GREAT job of maintaining their Antiochian heritage, but do make a supreme effort to be welcoming to the 'white-bread' folks. There is still clearly a tie to Antioch and the ancient practices of the ancient Church, and the services are generally in English and comprehensible to all. Perhaps it's the non-European aspects that keep some folks at a distance?

The Ruthenian Church made the decision back in the 1960s to be American - and the liturgies were English-ized to provide total access for Americans. While Slavonic was still used, and in some cases, quite liberally, the parishes were still American. Unfortunately there was still a huge remnant of "Latinization" from the 1920s through the 1950s that gives the church a hybrid feeling. Vespers and Matins disappeared, the liturgy got truncated: "Blessed is the Kingdom.....Svyati Bozhe....", and Roman rite vesture and titles were common. A Constantinopolitan church with Latin flavors - or a Latin church with ethnic flavors? Sometimes hard to discern.

For the future, I don't see a common Orthodoxy in the U.S. There is no 'groundwork' - like an American musical incarnation of the liturgies that is liberated from the European models. (Are there any unemployed Anglican musicians who can create - ab ovo - music for St. John Chrysostom and the other services? Recited liturgies - an abomination!)

Secondly, there is no incentive for the hierarchy of the various Orthodox jurisdictions in the U.S. to "knuckle under" to some newly constituted Synod.

Third, (although this is becoming less relevant as the decades pass), will the people (remember them, they ARE the Church!) be able to deal with a new American Orthodoxy that obliterates the ethnic elements?

And fourth, since there is a lineage question for canonicity, which ancient patriarchate will grant the autonomy to the American Orthodox Church? Greeks would like Constantinople; Russians and some other Slavs want Moscow; Ukrainians and some other Slavs want Kiev or anybody BUT Moscow; and Bulgarians, Romanians, Albanians, White-Russians and Serbs just want to be taken seriously. And the Arabs are too busy just trying to survive the Mohammedan onslaught (once again) to be much worried at this time.

So, in my perspective, Orthodoxy and Eastern Christianity in the Americas will continue to be "Byzantine" in the truest sense of the word -- both complex and complicated. We just need to commit to coming to each others' defense and aid when the guns are drawn.

"I'll have the borscht, the pierogi, the golumbki, the fatoosh, the dolmathes, the mititei, and the baklava/baklawa with a Greek coffee, please. Oh yeah, and a Diet Coke." :-)

Blessings to all - and a Pepto Bismol!

Dr John

Dear Father,

I am a dues paying member of the OCA and have been for several years, but the secretary of the church never put me on the subscription list, and several other families have the same problem. This problem is not just a problem with the OCA, but the Greek Orthodox Church and the Antiochian Church also. One cannot therefore base membership on the subscriptions.

Respectfully in Christ,
Elizabeth

Dear Harmon, dear Dr. John,

Talk of circuit riding priests and flexible parishes, there are small communities (really villages) in places like Alberta that look remarkably religious, with a church on all four street-corners. Inquire more closely, and one is apt to discover that the Greek-Catholic priest comes and serves in Church A on the first Sunday of the month, the Russo-Greek Orthodox priest comes and serves in Church B on the second Sunday of the month, the Ukrainian Orthodox priest comes and . . . you get the idea! Roughly the same congregation attends each church (things like Holy Week are also staggered to avoid competition and provide a reasonably full schedule of services).

As to "American" Orthodoxy, this term is not really defined yet - what is it that makes a cultural or religious phenomenon "American"? Virtually everyone in the USA goes back to somewhere in the Old World.

For whatever reason, the OCA chooses - in most places - to cling to the specific kind of Russian identity that was wished on their ancestors a century ago. But Bakhmetev is hardly the utter apex of the Orthodox liturgical pinnacle.

Mention music and one finds a remarkable unanimity - everyone immediately feels threatened! I've been told by the movers and shakers in more than one jurisdiction that "we are 100% American and open equally to everyone - and we will definitely maintain the heritage of [name of ethnic origin deleted here]".

Even in Dr. John's post just now, he proposes a completely new set of music for "American" Orthodoxy, to be written by Anglicans. But why junk an incredibly rich musical heritage? It's amazing what can be done - successfully - by combining elements from several backgrounds. Takes talent, obviously, but when it is done well it passes the ultimate test: the people will sing the stuff and enjoy it.

Also, please remember that Anglican music is also the palladium of an ethnic group. I shall resist the temptation to describe that particular group further!

"Will the people be able to deal with a new American Orthodoxy that obliterates the ethnic elements?"

I'm not sure that it's even possible to construct "a new American Orthodoxy that obliterates the ethnic elements?" The idea sounds culturally impoverished. If a parish has a clear ethnic element, rejoice - and provide them with a priest who shares that clear ethnic element. If the bishop is of a different ethnic tradition, don't worry too much; when Saint Tikhon was in America he managed to cope quite nicely.

Which Patriarchate should grant the eventual autocephaly? All of them, or it won't work - as the OCA has demonstrated.

For the immediate moment, I might make two suggestions: strengthen Saint Vladimir's Seminary, and strengthen Holy Trinity Monastery (at Jordanville). Without a good seminary and a good monastery, the game is lost before it starts.

Fr. Serge

P.S. - for those who are not familiar with it - the Russo-Greek Orthodox Church is a denomination which exists in Alberta and has one small parish somewhere in western Saskatchewan. This is the Moscow Patriarchate's jurisdiction in Canada.

There will be, and there needs to be. The church doesn't need to be uniform in language, customs, liturgics, etc.; nor do I think it ever will or should be. The diversity of the church is one of its assets. I feel a commonality today whenever I visit any Orthodox church that is not my own.

Where we do need a common Orthodoxy is in administration, missions, sharing of resources, education and disciplinary uniformity in some matters. That type of commonality is and will be needed. Without that the church will suffer, and that's why I think it will happen.

I've thought about this, both with respect to the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, and I'm in basic agreement. My thinking is that the Orthodox in America should be united under one jurisdiction, while preserving the ethnic traditions of the various parishes, or where a parish represents a variety of ethnic backgrounds, find ways to honor all of them. I also think that the Eastern Catholics in America should be united under one jurisdiction. Again, the ethnic heritages of the various parishes should be preserved. At first, there would be difficulties regarding how the current bishops would share leadership. However, that would not have to be a permanent problem. I believe that it is in the long-term best interest of Eastern Christianity (both Orthodox and Catholic) in America to do away with the current multiplicity of jurisdictions.

Ryan

There are people talking about the same things.

http://www.antiochian.org/node/16968
http://www.orthodoxdetroit.com/ZarrasThesis.pdf

Again, we're getting far off topic in this thread. The topic is listed as "Turmoil in the OCA." We've taken off on a comparison to the BCC and now we're off onto the need for single jurisdictions for both the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox.

Let's stay on topic or start new ones.

BOB