www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Ethno-phyletism

The flurry of ethno-centric postings of late has got me thinking of the concept of ethno-phyletism. For those unfamiliar with the terminology, the heresy of ethno-phyletism holds that the Church should organize/divide itself on the basis of ethnicity and race, not geography or established traditions/canons. In other words, undue emphasis on nationality or language, overriding the much more important principle, that being salvation.
What really got me thinking even more about this issue, was the recent enthronization of a new first hierarch in Russian Church Abroad, the consecration of one new bishop for the Russian Church Abroad, and the announcement of 3 more soon to be consecrated. I have seen so many postings regarding the Russian Church being the new "Evil Empire", etc. This is sad, especially when one considers that of the 5 new and soon to be hierarchs, not a one is Russian! Vladika Metropolitan Hilarion is Ukrainian, Vladika John is a Latvian, Soon to be bishop George (Schaeffer), is a German-American, and a convert from Roman Catholicism. Soon to be bishop John(Shaw) is an American and a convert from the Episcopalians. And soon to be Bishop Feodosy(Ivashchenko) is obviously a Ukrainian. Hardly Holy Mother Russia forcing "Russianess" on the faithful, now is it? Can those who so unabashedly condemn the Russian Church no matter what She does, claim such a totally UN-(insert the nationality of your choice) emphasis on the part of their particular Church?

I, for one, am overjoyed to have a new bishop. A German-American former Catholic one at that! Because to tell you the truth, I wouldn't care if he was Martian, just as long as he is Orthodox.

Alexandr

Alexandr:

As you know, the Communist regime that ruled the Soviet Union through the majority of the 20th century produced a great deal of anti-Soviet sentiment throughout much of the world. I know that you would agree with those who opposed the Soviet regime (or any other Marxist regime). Unfortunately, sometimes it is a challenge to distinguish the people of a nation from their rulers. Sometimes I wonder if animosity that some hold towards the Russian Orthodox Church is based (or at least partly based) in stereotypes that prevailed during the Cold War, rather than on conduct of the hierarchs of the Russian Church.

Ryan

Thank you Ryan. What is truly amazing, is that of all the Churches that suffered under the Godless Ones, and there were many, none suffered more than the ROC. Martyrs crowns went to Orthodox and Catholics of many different local Churches, but the Russian Church bore the brunt of the Evil One's heel longer and more violently than the rest. I would not wish for anyone to have to walk in those shoes.

Alexandr

I share your joy over the recent news.
It is good that the Bishop's office is filled. It is better that the Church Abroad has reconciled with the Patriarchate.

I don't understand some of what you wrote.
If I may, I would like to ask your opinion on a few questions.




Why, then, is it still the "Russian Church Abroad" rather than the "Orthodox Church of ( ... insert the place where it actually is...)"?

As the Patriarchal parishes, the ROCOR parishes, and the OCA parishes all trace their roots, in canonical authority, to the Moscow Patriarchate, why are they functionally separate?

For that matter, why are there other "national" Orthodox Churches in the USA and other nations?

If Patriarchal territory and canonical authority mean what you say, why are there parallel institutional structures?

Does the Patriarch of Moscow have canonical authority anywhere there are, or may be in the future, Russian settlers? If not, what limits exist?

Does the presiding Metropolitan of the Church Abroad have canonical authority anywhere, outside of Russia, where there are, or may be in the future, Russian settlers?

In your opinion, does the Ecumenical Patriarch have any canonical authority outside of Turkey? What limits exist?

OK, fair questions, let me address them to the best of my ability!

"Why, then, is it still the "Russian Church Abroad" rather than the "Orthodox Church of ( ... insert the place where it actually is...)"?"

It is the Organizational authority of the Russian Church in all areas outside of the national boundaries of Russia and Ukraine. Canonically, it is the ROC, whether in Moscow or New York. But the central administration is in the west.

"As the Patriarchal parishes, the ROCOR parishes, and the OCA parishes all trace their roots, in canonical authority, to the Moscow Patriarchate, why are they functionally separate?"

I assume here, that you are speaking of the United States? Much has to do with Church history. Boiled down to a bare minimum, when the Bolsheviks seized control over the Russian State, the only free part of the Church was the Church Abroad, who assumed all duties to preserve what part of the Church it could. It originally assembled in Yugoslavia, but as the World War approached, it moved to safe haven in New York. Until the Communist threat waned, all legitimate authority of the Russian Church lay in the Church Abroad, as the Church in the Soviet Union was not free to act according to truth. The OCA was a project implemented by the Church in the Soviet Union as a failed political statement, that did not work out as the Soviets had anticipated. ROCOR and the MP have now reconciled and become one. The OCA question remains up in the air for now.

"For that matter, why are there other "national" Orthodox Churches in the USA and other nations? "

Technically speaking, in the United States, there really should only be the Russian Orthodox Church. The Russian Church first evangelized North America in the 18th Century, and the first Higher Church Authority was established by the Russian Church. All other bishops, St Raphael of the Antiocians being most conspicuous, were under the authority of the Russian Church. However the Russian Revolution left the Church in North America leaderless, and the other national Churches rapidly sent bishops over to care for their flocks, resulting in the highly abnormal situation that is Orthodoxy in America.

"Does the Patriarch of Moscow have canonical authority anywhere there are, or may be in the future, Russian settlers? If not, what limits exist?"

No. The perogatives of authority are basically who evangelizes the people. The National Church will be the authority until the peoples evangelized are spiritually mature enough to bear responsibility for themselves. The Greeks evangelized the Russians, and for hundreds of years, the bishops in Rus were Greeks, until the Russians matured spiritually enough to stand for themselves. The Russian Church also evangelized China, Korea and Japan. The Russian Church cannot, say position a bishop in Athens, or Belgrade etc, as a canonical authority already exists there. The same holds true for all Orthodox Churches.

"In your opinion, does the Ecumenical Patriarch have any canonical authority outside of Turkey? What limits exist?"

The Ecumenical Patriarch really does not have too much authority outside of Turkey and Mt Athos right now. Greece has become independent of Constantinople, and the Mideast is under the rule of Antioch. Africa belongs to Alexandria. Orthodox Europe has it's own autocephalous and autonomous Churches, and western Europe has a grab bag of varied diocese.
Basically it boils down to this. Where there is an established Church, no Patriarch has the right to supercede the local bishop.

Your questions would really require a book to answer fully. I hope this helps.

Alexandr

There is no question of the great cross born by the Russian Church in the 20th century. Truly heroic sacrifice.

Many people were dispersed from their homes by the communist persecutions. The Church Abroad provided pastoral and spiritual care for those who fled or were exiled from Russia.

What should be the proper provision for pastoral care for members of other Churches who were exiled to places like Siberia, away from their homelands, and now have lived in those places for several generations?

Thank you.

You have clarified a number of points.

They would fall under the spiritual authority of the Orthodox bishop in Sibir or wherever they now find themselves. One of the most grevious errors that my Church, ROCOR, did, was to establish diocese in the former Soviet Union during the final days of communism, "competing", as it were against the local Orthodox(MP) bisop. It was wrong, and I publicly state so now.

Alexandr

I knew you would say that.

But could these people obtain pastoral and spiritual care?

There are people who accept the legitimacy of the Orthodox Church, and the sacraments of that Church, but believe that the Pope of Rome is the legitimate leader of the Church.

What shall we make of the statement by at least one Metropolitan that members of these Churches are not acceptable persons to be prayed with?

Alexandr:

I suspect that there was a diabolical reason behind this, too.

I'd read a piece about Europe prior to the Communist Revolution that stated something to the effect that there was no more godly nation in Europe than Holy Russia. The Enemy did a real number on the Russian nation and the Russian people during the 70 years of persectuion. Today's missionary task for the ROC is to re-evangelize a nation that has had its moral pinnings so damaged.

In Christ,

BOB