I’d rather see more Orthodox Americans than an American Orthodoxy.

The Greek Orthodox church is an ethnic church in this country. It serves more as a local Greek-American Chamber of Commerce than it does as a religious organization…
capthca ” altar every” eerie

Seconded on John.
Having talked to some Greeks, for them the issue with the OCA boils down to Chalcedon canon 28, which assigns jurisdiction of “barbarian lands” to Constantinople, and that canonically, autocephaly must be granted, or at least recognized, by Constantinople. From their point of view, whatever Fr. Alexander Schmemann and co. may have wished to accomplish in their brokering of the autocephaly deal for the Metropolia, the end result is that an end run was made around canonical procedure, and that they’re being generous by not accusing the OCA of not being a vagante group. I heard an Antiochian priest argue with this point of view a couple of weeks ago, claiming that the Russians having been here first makes this unquestionably their territory to either give autocephaly to or not, but I didn’t have the heart to point out to this priest that his own jurisdiction isn’t exactly falling all over itself to join the OCA.
Richard

RE: Metropolitan Philip, his demotion last year of our bishops seemed to be a personal power grab rather than any kind of Old World one. It was the Patriarch and Synod in Syria who laid down the law with him and came close to openly shaming him in their reversal of his move. Syrian monastics, not so constrained by diplomatic niceties, were quite strong in condemning Met. Philip’s play.
The irregular status of the OCA is one of the main questions of the Assembly. Seating them as the autocephalous ruling regional body pretty much makes any discussion moot. It just becomes a functional question of how to transition non-OCA parishes and clergy and pan-Orthodox ministries into the OCA governance structure. That may well be what ultimately happens, but it will need to be come to through consensus rather than fait accompli.
Chambessy made it pretty clear that the Old World leaders want a solution to our non-canonical situation but also that they see it as a problem here. The statements from that meeting read pretty much, “Y’all need to get your house in order.”
But that’s all really minutiae. Your question, “Will there ever be an American Orthodoxy?,” is the primary one, and that’s much more an existential question than one of governance. Existentially, it’s pretty clear that there is currently not an American Orthodoxy. I, for one, doubt that we are yet ready to unite and govern ourselves and fear that doing so may be quite dangerous. Those most committed to establishing an American Orthodoxy seem to be much more enamored of the first word in the pairing than the latter. If American Orthodoxy just means an Orthodoxy not at odds with consumerist junk, individualism, emotive religion, an Evangelical mindset on faith, and the influence of political ideology, which I fear, then God save us from American Orthodoxy. Let our primary focus be to just pray and be content to listen and learn to be Orthodox.

I’m a cynic; I suspect that there IS a power play at work here; the Old World patriarchates–in this case, Constantinople and Antioch–are concerned that a united, autocephalous Church would cut them off financially and use their resources solely for their local Churches. Right now, it’s money from Orthodox Christians in America that’s keeping them going.

Rod, I think you are mistaken and that the OCA bishops have essentially the same status as the Antiochian and GOA bishops in terms of voting rights, etc.. The meeting is chaired by the GOA primate as exarch of Constantinople, and the bishops of th other churches have some kind of seniority based on the ancient rankings of their churches (Constantinople, Antioch, etc. with Russia/OCA coming in rather low on the list due to its shorter history). See the OCA article here: http://www.oca.org/news/2164

First choice would be a unified and autocephalous American Orthodox Church, but the bishops (“Old World” or not) may block this. If you want to read their obstruction cynically, you could construe it as shameless lust for power. If you want to read it more charitably, you could agree that we are not mature enough for autocephaly. To be honest, I can understand either point of view, and I’m inclined to think there is some truth to both. But whether or not we emerge with autocephaly, we should certainly pray for unity as soon as possible. That is to say, failing the emergence of an American Orthodox Church, we should accept unity under the omophor of one of those infamous “Old World” clerics, even if it has to be the EP. Unity and canonical regularity, even if it means giving up our pretensions of self-rule for the foreseeable future.

SDF: Of course, just yesterday, Metropolitan PHILIP endorsed the idea of relocating the EP to the United States as an exarch, while saying “[t]he future of Orthodoxy in the Middle East is uncertain”. One wonders just how a transplanted Ecumenical Patriarch would impact the “unity” that was such a concern to Met. PHILIP last year, to the point of trying to eliminate diocesan bishops.
Those most committed to establishing an American Orthodoxy seem to be much more enamored of the first word in the pairing than the latter.
Yeah. Unfortunately. The demand for a “culturally American” Orthodox Christianity, and that yesterday, frankly frightens me. We’ve got a lot of “Hi, I’m a dumb American” things we need to work out, including tendencies to just throw away things we assume don’t matter. The trouble is that we need to understand what we’re changing or eliminating before we make a decision to do so. I’ve heard the argument that we don’t need a curtain over the Royal Doors, for example, because “it’s just a Russian thing.” Um, no. The church in Athens I attended last summer had a curtain, and virtually every other church I went into over there did as well. While I’ve never been to Lebanon or Syria, there are plenty of photos of churches from the Middle East that have curtains over the Royal Doors. So, sorry, we don’t get to throw it out because it’s a “Russian thing”.
One example that may seem silly, but I think says a lot: there’s a practice of strewing basil and other fragrant herbs around the church during the Liturgy of Holy Saturday. The idea is that people walk on them and they stay in the church, thus spreading the fragrance around the nave before the Paschal services. My priest has tried to do this a couple of years in a row, and I still remember the person who came in at the tail end of the Holy Saturday Liturgy and asked, “Why did Father throw salad all over the floor?” Then somebody collected all of the herbs off the floor and baked them into the lasagna they were making for the Paschal feast. Our priest doesn’t try to use basil that way anymore, because it’s clear that people just don’t get it.
Say whatever else you like about “ethnic Orthodoxy” — if you’re just trying to reconstruct the faith rather than receive it from people who live it, you’re going to wind up with a lot of gaps in your understanding.
Richard

If American Orthodoxy just means an Orthodoxy not at odds with consumerist junk, individualism, emotive religion, an Evangelical mindset on faith, and the influence of political ideology, which I fear, then God save us from American Orthodoxy. Let our primary focus be to just pray and be content to listen and learn to be Orthodox.
Amen.
There’s a reason it’s called “The Orthodox Church in America,” not “The American Orthodox Church.”

To help illuminate the situation, I wonder if someone could compare the situation Rob presents with a Orthodoxy, a unified American Orthodox church, and the OCA to Evangelicalism, a (hypothetical) unified American Evangelical church, and the SBC. Is it analogous?

Sadly this one is simple to explain; one need only follow the money.
Ethnic communities in the US are huge money-raisers for their homeland churches, the recognition of an American Orthodox Church under any single authority, threatens that arrangement.
To me it’s all political, and I note that no Orthodox Church refuses communion to members of the OCA, and that OCA parishes are routinely included in so-called “pan-Orthodox” liturgies, events and outreaches. So don’t sweat the small stuff. This, too, will pass.

Lots of great comments so far, and I hope there are more of them. I especially like Richard Barrett’s insights.
I have to say that I have been Orthodox for 14 years now, and the only thing I’m confident in saying is that old bumper sticker truism about Orthodoxy being “disorganized religion at its finest.”

RHampton,
There’s only one Orthodox Church (one profession of faith, defined and defended by the seven Ecumenical Councils), though there are multiple jurisdictions that historically have been based upon national boundaries and ethnic identity. What happened in the Americas (and in the Far East) is that different immigrant populations brought with them priests from their homelands, and absent a local Orthodox authority those priests remained connected to their bishops in their homelands.
And so we find multiple jurisdictions of one Church operating side-by-side. This is technically un-Orthodox, as it creates the impression that there are many Orthodox Churches though there is only one.
The situation of Protestant Evangelicalism is very different. There are multiple Churches, multiple professions and definitions. Attempts to unify the different groups tend to be political, not religious, as with the National Council of Churches. How could it be otherwise? If there’s no agreement on the faith, how could you place yourself in obedience to someone with whom you disagree?

I once met a Greek Orthodox gentleman who clearly did not think the OCA should be autocephalous; he didn’t really think they were fully Orthodox, and was rather snide about their “short Liturgies” and other failings.
That attitude might have been shocking to me, a non-Orthodox–except that it so strongly resembled the way that some ultra-traditional Catholics speak of the Novus Ordo types, etc.
Christ prayed that His followers would all be one. We tend to pray, “O Lord, please make all of your other followers more like me.” Alas.

Re: I once met a Greek Orthodox gentleman who clearly did not think the OCA should be autocephalous; he didn’t really think they were fully Orthodox, and was rather snide about their “short Liturgies” and other failings.
I have no idea what this guy was talking about. I’ve attended liturgies across several jurisdictiions and I have never found any of them to be significantly longer or shorter. To be sure local variations do exist, and they exist in the Old World churches too. Maybe the gentleman above attended one OCA church that did rush through things and he figured they all rush through things.
By the way, I’ve been in a couple of Greek churches that had organs which the choirmasster used to play a few bars of the tone for the choir– and this isn’t really kosher with our tradition either.

Well, I think he was speaking of some local churches, Jon. He seemed to think that the OCA’s liturgies ran less than the full three hours, or something–but then again, I don’t know whether it’s standard for Greek Orthodox liturgies to go three hours, or if that’s a specific holy day scenario, etc. But I think it’s similar to those Catholics of traditional bent who are sure that “Novus Ordo” Catholics never genuflect or receive Communion on the tongue, etc.–there’s a tendency to turn the infractions of some people into the “way” a whole group of people act, whether that’s true or not.

RE: “Can they not simply recognize the OCA’s autocephalous status, however irregular it was granted a generation ago?”
No, here are some good reasons why:
* Decisions regarding autocephaly belong to “a Synod representing more generally the entirety of the local Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, and especially to an Ecumenical Synod” .
* Establishing missions in what was then part of the Russian Empire (Alaska), a few churches in major industrial centers, and then wooing numerous ex-Uniates to its fold did not canonically give the Church of Russia sole ecclesiastical jurisdiction over an entire continent.
*It is against canonical and traditional order for a diocese regarded as having been in schism (as the Metropolia had officially been by Moscow from 1933 to 1970) to be suddenly granted autocephaly.
Autocephaly by its nature includes a total territorial definition, which Moscow’s tomos does not make, especially because it kept dozens of parishes for itself in North America and makes no claim over the majority of Orthodox parishes in America. This is a “paradox… unheard of in the Orthodox chronicles”.
* Autocephaly must require the full agreement of the people and leadership in the territory in question, but the OCA’s autocephaly only represented the agreement of a minority of Orthodox America. St. Tikhon of Moscow said this regarding the Church of Georgia, that its autocephaly must be “the universal and fully agreed upon wish of the people.”
*Autocephaly has been proclaimed multiple times, but always failed without the assent of the whole Church. (The Churches of Carthage, Mediolana (Milan), the First Justiniana, Ochrid, Trnovo, Ipek, and Iberia are all examples).

Bravo, Richard! (Captcha: “the division.” Indeed.)

In case anyone is wondering, the reason the Greek Orthodox gentleman thought the OCA had short liturgies is almost certainly caused by his ignorance of the differences between the Greek and Slavonic typika (rules for the conducting of services). In the Typikon of the Great Church of Christ which is followed by Greeks and Arabs the Sunday morning service is quite long (between two and three and a half hours) since it consists of both Matins and the Divine Liturgy. In the older Typikon of St Savvas that is followed by the Slavs the Matins service is sung on Saturday night as part of the Vigil Service (also a long service). Thus if one attends services only on Sunday Morning and comes at the beginning then the Russians appear to have the shorter service.
On the other hand most Greeks and Arabs that I know only attend the Divine Liturgy rather than go at the beginning of Matins. If one does that then the Slavonic service is normally longer! This is due to the fact that the early part of the Divine Liturgy in the Greek Typikon is somewhat abridged when compared to the Slavonic one.
Confused yet?

Re: He seemed to think that the OCA’s liturgies ran less than the full three hours, or something
I have never attended a liturgy that lasted that long. Unless there’s an absolutely interminable sermon I don’t see how the liturgy (the John Chrysostom version) could last that long. The average is about an hour and a half, everywhere I have been, including Greek churches here. To be sure there’s a pre-liturgical ceremony called orthos that consists of chanting verses as the congregation slowly gathers, and sometimes there are post-liturgical services, including memorials for the departed. But only on Pascha have I been in church for a full three hours.

One way or the other, what the Greek Orthodox gentleman is hitting on that is legitimate is that there is very little liturgical uniformity in this country. Parishes tend to be largely free to pick and choose whatever they want to do or don’t want to do (and in the Antiochian Archdiocese, that’s already predicated on some “standard cuts” that are mandated from above). On the other hand, GOArch is hardly the model child in this regard.
If you did absolutely everything including a homily for a Sunday Divine Liturgy — including the litanies for catechumens, sung prokeimenon and alleluia with verses, dynamis for the Trisagion, and then Typika instead of stational antiphons, with stichera for the Beatitudes — you could easily get close to two hours, and then Matins would easily be an additional 1.30-1.45 (if not more) if you did each ode of each canon in full. Maybe ROCOR parishes do all of this more often than they don’t. Antiochian, Greek, and OCA parishes all tend to make reasonably big cuts somewhere. There are, of course, exceptions. In general, I’d argue it’s very difficult to go from one parish to another, regardless of jurisdiction, and be certain that you’ll know what’s happening.
One particular hierarch who shall remain nameless for the time being has said that he wants all of his parishes to follow the same rubric, but this is a rubric that is quite abbreviated, given this hierarch’s express desire to have a Divine Liturgy over with in less than an hour.
Richard

I think the reason the OCA is snubbed is because of its claim to be the “Orthodox church OF America”, though it uses the term “in”. No other Orthodox church makes this claim. The OCa Bishop in Canada makes the claim he is Bishop of all of Canada. This, I believe, is why the OCA is snubbed

Just saw the update.
Met. PHILIP’s comments, of course, must be heard in light of the nasty issues that played out last year regarding diocesan bishops. He also ignores that Abp. Demetrios took some pains to explain why the term “diaspora” is being used, and what it means for their working purposes. Which is not to say that relocating the EP here is necessarily a bad idea; it’s just that context is everything, and I think Met. PHILIP is serving a particular rhetorical function that has little to do with the convictions his words may suggest.
Richard
(CAPTCHA: “our marietta” — well, as long as she isn’t naughty)

I’m at the EA. The OCA bishops are seated and participating fully. They are not “observers only.”

I was taught Orthodox Christianity by a priest who came from the Slavic tradition, but due to the location of the nearest Orthodox Church and the advanced age of my car (and myself as its driver) I now attend a Greek Orthodox Church and I have no problem following the services in either Greek or English. I never had any difficulties with the Slavonic services either–there are Service Books that have the liturgical languages in threee columns: the liturgy in the liturgical language, the liturgical language (transliterated in Roman type) and the English meaning of each word in order. All one needs to do is to follow along: there are even small pictures showing where the priest is standing and what he is doing at the key moments.
At my Greek Church, everybody treats me very kindly–they let me help with many projects, and they even let me sing in the choir–I have learned to sing in Greek and I enjoy it very much. I took a little bit of Greek in university and that helped too–but I like languages.
Especially though, I love the people. We are all God’s people. I think that if we keep trying to keep this friendly atmosphere as we have in our local churches, we will be able to rise above these “bumps in the road” and go on to be American Orthodox Christians. Nobody asks me where I’m from, but if they do, they get the name of the suburb where I live and grew up. Let’s just have an Orthodox Church for the EU, one for the Constantinopolitan dependencies, one for Moscow/Kiev and dependencies, for Jerusalem, for Alexandria, for missions far and wide, and for the USA. If the Church of Old Rome (who have been being very kind lately) can participate in mutual spreading of the Gospel, let’s welcome them and all reach out together! We can do it.
Love in Christ,
Mary in Philly
Captcha particularly nifty this time: “Durack Is!”

Mary,
You’re at a Greek parish in Philly? Which one? I’ve met several Orthodox college students, grad students, med students, etc. new to Philadelphia who are looking for a parish and who asked me for advice, so I’m always on the lookout for good places to send them. Thanks!
In XC,
rjg

Liturgical Uniformity?
I think the goal of the EA is administrative unity. I think this will include unified standards of administration, but as far as liturgical uniformity, this is not the goal nor should it be. Church History attests that there has always been liturgical diversity. In reality, the possibility of liturgical uniformity only came about with the invention of the printing press. To this very day, even within the Orthodox Church, each local church has its own liturgical particularities. Moreover, there are even liturgical particularities within these local churches. In the Russian Church you find slight regional differences and thus liturgists speak of “Moscow” and “Kiev” usage. In the Serbian Church, you find in the south, the practices are more “Greek”, even using Byzantine Chant, whereas in the North, it is more influenced by “Russian” practices. So, we find ourselves in America with parishes which, although Americanized, have their roots in a traditional Orthodox ethnic group. We also are operating on two different liturgical calendars. Likewise, in the Antiochian Archdiocese and the Russian Church Abroad, there are a handful of Western Rite communities. This does not have to be a problem. We cannot expect a community, whose customs are “Russian” to suddenly trade these up for “Greek” practices and vice versa. What will have to be done is seminarians will have to learn the various liturgical customs (at the very least the “Greek” and “Russian” practices) as well as bishops. Yes, the Greek bishop will have to serve Russian style in a “Russian” parish and the Russian bishop will have to serve Greek style in a Greek practice. And as we come together, over time, an organic “American” liturgical usage will develop. We already see this in certain Antiochian and OCA parishes where there is a blend of “Greek” and “Russian” practices.

Let’s draw a distinction between “liturgical uniformity” and everybody being on the same page about how liturgical practice is informed.
For example, when somebody talks about something being “Antiochian tradition”, what do they mean? Do they mean a genuine practice that’s how the Syrians and Lebanese have done it for centuries? Do they mean what Arab-Americans have gotten used to doing in their churches here? Do they mean a practice that the former EOC folks invented and subsequently imported when they were brought into the Antiochian Archdiocese? Or do they mean how they do things at the Antiochian Village summer camp? I’ve heard the same person use the term, in describing this or that liturgical practice, to mean all four depending on context.
I’m familiar with one parish that, at least the couple of times I visited, was so adamant that the entire congregation sing absolutely every word of every service that it meant that they just didn’t bother cycling through the proper hymns of the liturgical year because that meant that not everybody would know everything. Is that a “legitimate, organic development”?
To restate an earlier point, some of this has to do with understanding what we’re changing before we change it. This means having an ethos of receiving a tradition before we sit in judgment on it, and also seeing the liturgy as a systematic whole rather than a collection of discrete, negotiable parts. For example, the prokeimenon and alleluia being sung with verses serve a particular liturgical function; to just say, “well, those are repetitive and don’t add anything essential, so we can either cut them entirely or just read them quickly rather than add an extra five minutes to a service to sing them” does not exactly display an understanding of that liturgical function.
Obviously, yes, there are two Typika that get used, the Typikon of the Great Church and the Sabaitic Typikon, and then there’s the matter of how the Typikon gets followed. If it were just a question of differences in implementation of differing Typika, that would be one thing. In a lot of parishes, however, there’s the mentality of “We can just do what works for us,” usually expressed as “Our tradition *here* is such and such…” As a friend of mine puts it, we need to understand that there really are standard ways of doing things *before* we start reserving the right to do it “our way”.
Richard
(CAPTCHA: “was Adelphia”)

The reason Orthodoxy is so confusing and the disunity will always persist is that you do not have unity with the See of Rome.
Its really very simple. Pray for unity!

16 May 1962 Letter of Bishop Dositheus Ivanchenko, Russian Patriarchal Exarch of North America, to the Member-Hierarchs of SCOBA:
“…The defect which we speak of in the title of the Standing Conference concerns the word ‘canonical.’  This word ‘canonical’ in the title of the Conference does not correspond with the actual composition of the Conference. Besides canonical bishops who represent canonical eparchies, there are uncanonical bishops representing uncanonical eparchies in the Conference, e.g. the so-called Metropolinate [present-day OCA] a schismatic body which has fallen away from unity with its Mother Russian Church.  …at the very adoption of the title of the Conference, it was necessary to arrive at a new interpretation of the word ‘canonical’ as used by the Conference – understanding by this word that a canonical bishop is one who received a canonical consecration (?). By this definition a bishop may remain canonical even though after consecration he falls away from the Canonical Church and finds himself unrecognized by any of the Canonical Regional Churches throughout the entire world.
“This new type of ‘Augustinian’ view of canonicity is something entirely new to Orthodoxy.
“…The word ‘canonical’ as used in the title of the Conference has been used to lull thousands of innocent Orthodox people into thinking they were really ‘canonical.’  …the Conference has become a sort of co-participant in willful deception not only of ordinary Orthodox Christians but of judges in American courts.
“The new definition of ‘canonicity’ violates the centuries-old established order of recognition of the canonicity of Regional Churches and it must be eliminated.
“…We think it is necessary, in view of the above-mentioned, to move the adoption of the following title for the Conference in place of the present one: ‘The Standing Conference of Bishops of the Orthodox Jurisdictions in America.’
“With such a name, not only may such groups as the Metropolitanate be part of the Conference, but so many other uncanonical jurisdictions as well. …we believe it would be profitable to permit the various Orthodox non-canonical jurisdictions to belong to the Standing Conference. This would be one way in which they could eventually be integrated into the life of canonical Orthodoxy.”
“They that are of the Church of Christ are they that are of the truth; and they that are not of the truth are not of the Church of Christ…for we are reminded that we are to distinguish Christianity not by persons, who have ecclesiastical titles, but by the truth and by the exactness of the Faith” [St. Gregory Palamas, Archbishop and Wonderworker of Thessalonika; Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, Collected Works, Vol. II, 1972, Nordland Publishing Company, Belmont, Mass.].
“… those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine” [Saint Ireneaus (130-202 AD.), Prescription Against Heretics, Vol. III, p.258, Chapter 32].
“If then any come to you, and, as blessed John says [2 John 9-10], brings with him right doctrine, say to him, All hail, and receive such an one as a brother” [St. Athenasius (296-373 AD), Second Letter to Monks].
“…if He did not overlook the Magi, nor the Ethiopian, nor the thief, nor the harlot, much more them that work righteousness, and are willing, shall He in anywise not overlook” [Saint John Chrysostom, Commentary on Acts 10:2].

Matt,
Communion with Rome would provide us with a means of resolving some of our practical problems– but at the cost of requiring us to adhere to dubious doctrines and accept unwise ecclesial policies.

??????Thus, for the sake of international Orthodox unity and Orthodox unity in North America, we should with one voice, beg His Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch to leave Istanbul and move to Washington, D.C. or New York City and head a united Orthodox Church in this hemisphere. All of us, I am sure, will be blessed to be under his omophorion and Orthodox unity in North America will cease to be a dream, but a reality.??????
>leaving the holy land means leaving the Christian Religion <it is much better the American to move to the holy land instead , the remaining followers of Christ to move to a nation which crowded with unnatural desires. I personally think that the American whoever they are they should better move to the Holy land and suffer with their follow Christians and witness the faith in its foundation! As it is written in Hebrew13; 7Remember your leaders who taught you the word of God. Think of all the good that has come from their lives, and follow the example of their faith. Leaving the holy land to infidels is nonsense.why why fear to die for Christ?

>leaving the holy land means leaving the Christian Religion <it is much better the American to move to the holy land instead ,the remaining TRUE PURE followers of Christ to move to a nation which crowded with unnatural desires. I personally think that the American whoever they are they should better move to the Holy land and suffer with their follow Christians and witness the faith in its foundation! As it is written in Hebrew13; 7Remember your leaders who taught you the word of God. Think of all the good that has come from their lives, and follow the example of their faith. Leaving the holy land to infidels is nonsense.WHY WHY moving FEAR TO DIE FOR CHRIST!or move for money “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me”amen

The non-Canonical status of the OCA pseudo-autocephally is problematic, and it can be easily resolved however neither the Patriarch of Moscow nor the OCA have made any moves toward making it happen. The OCA is preoccupied at the moment with massive financial scandals that could force it to split apart with churches aligning themselves with other jurisdictions.
That being said, the presence of multiple jurisdictions operating their own dioceses in the USA is also non-Canonical as the USA technically falls under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch under church Canon law.
The non-Canonical status of the OCA does not make them heretical like the Patriarchate of Rome, however it is an abnormality that must be eventually addressed.

Dear Joseph,
I’m sorry, the name of my parish is something I’d rather keep private for now, if you don’t mind. Of course, there are not that many Greek parishes in Philadelphia, and I’ve been to several of them in my career as an Orthodox convert–they’re all very welcoming and a joy to attend, in my experience. All one needs to do is to be friendly and offer help when it’s requested!
Mary in Phila.

Joseph, I should have mentioned that among all the Greek Orthodox Churches in Philadelphia, the most notable one is clearly the “St. George’s” Cathedral at 8th and Spruce Streets. It is convenient to most of the colleges in Philadelphia, and it has excellent clergy and services/festivals/parish activities of all sorts. If I lived in the City itself, I’d happily attend there! One time, a bishop came to Philadelphia all the way from Cyprus, and brought his fine chanter, who sang like an angel at the service I was privileged to attend. It was a pleasure to behold the beauty of the ceremonies particularly designed to welcome an important bishop!
Mary

>I’d rather see more Orthodox Americans than an American Orthodoxy.
The two are not totally unrelated.

>Those most committed to establishing an American Orthodoxy seem to be much more enamored of the first word in the pairing than the latter.
In my experience, just the opposite. Those most invested in the continuance of ethnic divisions are those who attend Liturgy maybe twice a year.

It is inaccurate to call the OCA’s autocephaly “non-canonical” and outrageous to call it “pseudo autocephaly.”
The OCA was granted autocephaly by its own mother Church (the MP), which it had every right to do. Likewise, the Antiochian archdiocese was recently granted autocephaly (or, as they’ve styled it, “self-ruled” status) by *its* mother church. No permission needed from Turkey. Also, the OCA has **actually** (as opposed to what ‘pseudo’ would imply) practiced autocephaly since being granted its status by Moscow.
The EP refuses to acknowledge the status simply because of the canonical implications that would have on their own power and legitimacy in the territories of the OCA’s jurisdiction. No other reason. Period.
What utter hypocrisy from a church who changed a UNIVERSAL discipline unilaterally (the calendar). This in fact IS a matter of canon law. It was done without the approval or cooperation of the other Orthodox Patriarchates. Why? To cozy up to the Pope. Absurd! I am not a calendarist, and my own parish celebrates according to the NC. I do recognize this tragic and divisive decision for what is was, however.
The “abnormality” of the OCA’s autocephalous status is only in the prideful and power-hungry mind of the EP. What needs to happen is for their status to be recognized forthwith. The main seminaries and monasteries (outside of Elder Ephraim’s communities) in the United States are OCA. The vast majority of the missionary activity and evangelism is within and by the OCA (on par with the Antiochian Archdiocese). To advocate the exclusion of His Beatitude Met. Jonah is INSANELY offensive.
Lord have mercy on His All-Holiness, His Beatitude, and their brother “their graces” bishops as they find some godly resolution and provide for us the Christ-like leadership we need.
Forgive me, a sinner, who calls it like I see it.

Point of correction: AOCNA was absolutely not granted “autocephaly” or anything like it. What it shot for was “autonomy”, which would mean that they would be able to ordain their own bishops; what it got was “self-rule”, which means that the Patriarch of Antioch still has to be the one to ordain the bishops. Even “autonomy,” what they were shooting for, wouldn’t be autocephaly; they’d still be subject to the Patriarch of Antioch.
In any event, suffice it to say that the canonical issues regarding the legitimacy of the OCA’s autocephaly are complex. Perhaps the Moscow Patriarchate was within its rights to grant autocephaly to the Metropolia; however, one may just as easily argue that Constantinople has been within their rights to decline to recognize it. One way or the other, I think everybody can agree that the matter of the Americas is a tangled web, not everybody sees eye to eye, and it will take humility, prayer and patience, at least, to solve it. My hope is that this meeting of the EA is a start.
Richard
(CAPTCHA: “assent skies”)

A thought for “Your Name” at 4:57pm: I might suggest that part of the problem here is that there are converts who think that a good Orthodox Christian looks basically the same as a good Protestant with a puff of incense smoke and a nod towards the Mother of God here and there, and thus “those ethnics who don’t come to church as often as *we* do” become representative of That From Which Orthodoxy Needs Saving, Preferably By Us Converts. If American Orthodoxy means, at least for the moment, intellectual assent to Orthodox doctrine (at least some of them) but an American Protestant heart and ethos, then I think it’s safe to say we’re not ready for American Orthodoxy. That doesn’t mean we need to become Hellenized or Russified or Romaniacal, but what the ethnic churches have on us, like it or lump it, is a cultural system in which Orthodoxy works. See my earlier comment about basil on Holy Saturday for a small example of the kind of thing we need to figure out in its present form *before* we start adapting it for an American cultural context (whatever that actually means).
Richard

The major canonical problem that this assembly is trying to fix is the American system of having more than one bishop in a major metropolitan area. This situation is uncannonical. Philadelphia, New York, LA, and Detroit are a few other cities in this predicament. We need to pray for the Assembly to have the courage and wisdom and selflessness this huge undertaking requires. I think the analogy that makes most sense to me right now is Moses and the 12 tribes of Israel. We can unite for administrative purposes, but each group can keep the flavor of their own tribe including the Americans in our midst who have come along with us in Orthodoxy. Even we cradle Orthos know that we are Americans first and whatever ethnicity we inherited from Baba second. Most importantly,
we are Chritians who want to follow the Fathers and the Canons.