Our Pets Can Remind Us to Be Charitable
17 hours ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
St. John of San Francisco
Orthodox Information & Resources
Orthodox Blogs
-
-
-
-
Me and My Bible6 days ago
-
-
Stories5 weeks ago
-
-
-
-
So, what is the Eucharist, really?3 months ago
Non-Orthodox Blogs
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A sadness. . .18 hours ago
-
-
-
Politics Economics Culture & Miscellaneous Blogs
Don't blame me... I voted for George (the Third)
-
-
-
Caboose Pinups: 19431 day ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Miscellaneous Sites of Interest
The Blog Yard
Where the best blogs go when they die...
Gone But Not Forgotten
-
My good people5 months ago
-
-
A Brief Return1 year ago
-
‘The Jews are beloved of God’4 years ago
-
-
Moving day6 years ago
-
Sayonara for now6 years ago
-
MY FELLOW AMERICANS7 years ago
-
A Week in Iceland! Part 18 years ago
-
Coda8 years ago
Atom / RSS
19 comments:
This is deeply disappointing.
What the ROCOR hierarchs are essentially saying is that the current jurisdictionalism is not only acceptable, but actually to be preferred to proper canonical order. In so doing, they are putting the ministry to their existing, self-selected flock (the flock "finding itself abroad and wishing to remain in her bosom" as their statement puts it) ahead of the task of being the Apostolic Church in this place and of preaching the Gospel to the people of the country who so sorely need to hear it in its fullness.
I suppose this is only to be expected from a jurisdiction whose very name (the Russian Church, Outside Russia) is a contradiction of Orthodox canonical norms.
I suppose, on reflection, that the ROCOR bishops should be commended for their honesty. They preside over a tribal religion for Russians (with sufferance for some few Russophiles by a sort of ethnic oikonomia), they have no intention that their Church will ever be anything else, and they are not afraid to say so.
I'm a ROCOR catechumen, and I'm 100% american, 0% russian. The reason I chose ROCOR was because of its completely unambiguous stand on cultural issues -- feminism, homosexuality, etc. And I think ROCOR wants to continue standing apart because it's not entirely clear that other groups will maintain such a stand.
Frankly, I'm fine with the current arrangement. Having different Orthodox jurisdictions competing against each other gives me a sense of peace -- it's unlikely they'll all go full Episcopal all at once if they're separate.
The reason I chose ROCOR ...
There is something fundamentally non-Orthodox about "choosing" a jurisdiction. If there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, then how can one "choose" which Church to belong to? You don't "shop around" for the Catholic Church. On the other hand, "shopping around" is certainly (as you put it) 100% American.
Check back with me about being "100% American" after you've learned to call your bishop "Vladyka," to be sure to eat Blini on Cheesefare Sunday, to call your priest's wife "Matushka," and to remember the faithful departed by singing "Blechnaya Pamyat" to a mournful and utterly Russian melody.
I am a pretty big admirer of many things with respect to ROCOR. But Chris is right about their ethnocentrism. It doesn't exist in all of their parishes, but it's pretty widespread.
On the other hand there is nothing wrong with the term matushka. It's a term of respect for which there is no equivalent in English. And the Greeks and Arabs have their own versions. Nor is there a problem with singing vechnaya pamyat. I'm OCA (though I attend a Greek parish currently) and we used to sing the memory eternal in both English and Slavonic. The Greek parish has its services at least half in Greek. For that matter I know quite a few Catholics who prefer their Mass in Latin. Are they somehow un-American? The tones and hymns are part of the church's liturgical patrimony which is colorful and divergent depending on where everyone came from.
All of that aside, this is a poor defense for perpetuating a profoundly uncanonical situation in an effort to preserve some ethnic turf. And yes, unfortunately the Russians do have a reputation for being selective about which canons they like to see rigorously enforced. Their position seems to be that where there are ethnic Russians there also will be the Russian Church.
Doesn't anyone else find this as coming at the time of increasing hostility of Moscow and Constantinople? This sounds like pious politics to me.
John,
It's not the ethnic customs, it's the mindset that they reveal. That mindset is both canonically and theologically indefensible.
The business of the Church is to preach the Gospel of repentance and forgiveness of sins to every nation. Curating anybody's worldly cultural heritage is simply not part of her writ. If the Church were focused on the mission given her by the Saviour, the various ethnic flavors would be of no consequence (and they would in due course be transformed into the American ethnic flavor). And if the Church were so focused, the "Chambésy process" would have been undertaken years ago and would be long since completed. But for the Orthodox, ethnic identity is at the heart of the Church's mission. That -- and not the artifacts of ethnic culture -- is the problem.
Chris, you make a good point. Choosing a parish based on perceived piety probably is un-Orthodox -- it might be even more un-Orthodox than gay marriage and female priests. What do I know. I'm just a Catechumen. (Evidently, not a good one.)
So thank you for enlightening me, a dumb American -- so quintessentially American that I'm guilty of "shopping around." (American, bad.) In fact, I am so phenomenally, confoundingly American that I have crossed over the event horizon of Americaness, landing in a perilous alternate dimension consisting of cheese blinis and slavic hymns. (Unamerican, also bad.)
Anyway, you have deftly persuaded me of your position. Strike my humble suggestion of a contrary perspective from the record! How could I have been so foolish to think that I know anything about the cares and concerns of ROCOR? Next time, after my 100% English liturgy, I will tell my 80% convert community to quell their concerns about gay marriage and feminism, and refocus their energy on the *real* obstacle to salvation: Russian stuff.
*
John, your response, lacking vinegar, merits a serious reply. I can, of course, only speak from my own experience. It is perhaps an odd twist of fate, but the ROCOR church I attend is the only one in my area with a liturgy completely in English. But that doesn't really matter to me. It was also the only parish that was completely unambiguous on the issues of homosexuality, feminism, and all the other things that made me and people like me flee the mainline protestant churches. And that matters to me *a lot.*
I can't speak for the leadership anywhere, but as I get to know Orthodox laity, I see that most people fall into one of two camps: the "We must have an American Orthodoxy!!" camp, and the "We must not go the way of the Episcopals!" camp. (There is a third camp, the one that actually *wants* Orthodoxy to become Episcodoxy, but they are a minority, albeit a lamentably energetic one.) Obviously, I'm in the the second camp, and that colors my view. And while I speak with certainty about my own priorities, my certainty obviously diminishes as you get further from me and out into the broader ROCOR world.
So call it a hunch. Still, I thought it was a hunch worth sharing. It's probably not a very fun hunch to entertain if you're not in ROCOR. And maybe it's wrong. But maybe it's right.
Obviously, it's not like the OCA or GOA or whatever are coming out and saying we need female priests or gay marriage or whatever. Officially, all the jurisdictions are making the right declarations. The concern is what's going on behind the scenes. (That third camp mentioned above.) This is all necessarily murky and the truth is difficult to ascertain, so by all means, add as many grains of salt to my perspective as you deem necessary, it won't hurt my feelings. It would actually be reassuring to find out that my fears are baseless -- I just fear that they aren't.
Thomas,
I apologize for the vinegar. I should not have found fault with your intention to embrace Orthodoxy through ROCOR. In fact I never meant to do that; I support and encourage your intention to become Orthodox, whatever the jurisdiction.
I have strong opinions, opinions that are well-informed and thought-through. But that is no excuse for attacking you. I didn't intend that, but re-reading my words I can see how that came across. I apologize and ask your forgiveness.
Pride. Nothing justifies conflicting and overlapping jurisdictions. Look at the Orthodox and Anglicans, not to mention the myriad versions of Baptist, with 4 churches on the same avenue, splitting hairs over what? How many times to dunk? Whether the grape juice is Welch's or generic? What a mess! This is a poor witness to the world.
ROCOR plants churches and it is the sacred responsibility of church-planting bodies to nurture healthy fellowship.
Though regrettable, this seems all-too-predictable. I do suspect that it has a great deal to do with the ongoing tension between Constantinople and Moscow, most of which is over things that are "worldly" not "godly."
The need here is not so much for the Orthodox Church to be "American" as it is for it to be visibly "one." The issue is not language or customs, it is the truth that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither Irish nor English, neither Turk nor Russian, neither Romanian nor Chinese. Our only homeland is Heaven -- and when we treasure nationality or ethnicity over that, we find ourselves even further from that homeland in self-imposed exile.
In fairness, ROCOR is still in the honeymoon period of its reconciliation with the Patriarchate of Moscow, a reconciliation for which I continue to give thanks. Also, in fairness, there are those in other jurisdictions who play fast and loose with our ecclesiology or doctrine. But that is all the more reason for UNION, not justifying DISUNION. ROCOR has much to contribute to unified Orthodoxy on this continent. How sad that she refuses to give it.
We need each other, and America needs us. This kind of petty, emotional separatism and, yes, blatant phyletism, will not stand us in good stead as it becomes more and more a matter of sacrifice and courage to be an Orthodox Christian in the United States and Canada.
Monk Theodore
I wrote a blog post some time back on how wonderful Orthodox multiculturalism was, even as I lamented jurisdictionalism. I made the comment that perhaps an unintended side effect of jurisdictionalism is that you could see the one Church in different parishes, since the cultural artifacts remained.
A very wise Orthodox priest commented to the effect that there is no reason why these cultural artifacts could not remain even if jurisdictional unity were achieved. He was right. I was young and foolish, but he cut right through the naivete. There really is no reason at all we cannot maintain distinct cultural identity while having canonical unity. IMHO, the cultural issues are an excuse to maintain division, not a reason.
Although I am not in ROCOR, I am sometimes saddened or alarmed by the willingness of Greek Orthodox priests in this country to abbreviate the services (especially the Divine Liturgy), priests and parishes that have no Saturday evening Vespers, priests who start Holy Week on Wednesday with Holy Unction, and their Archdiocese has devised ugly modern translations into English (their Divine Liturgy sounds like a Catholic Mass or Rite II of the Episcopalians. We have a liturgical language in English--use it! )Also the Greek Orthodox are the loosest in matters of interpretation of the canons (catechesis for Baptism/Chrismation, mixed marriages and re-marriage, divorced men in the priesthood, and, lowest of all, the Greek Orthodox clergy get their knickers in a twist about Father Ephrem's monasteries--holy houses that attempt to retain the spirit and practice of the Orthodox faith.
I think Chris is right on many levels; however, I'd emphasize "current" as in "wait and see". Not everyone wants to be part of shaping the solution - or is free to do so, and some may actually contribute more to the process by removing themselves and allowing those whose hearts and authority allow them to be moved constructively to engage without disruptive influences of those who cannot or choose not to view the possibilities rather than the problems. In this ROCOR does us the favor of pointing to some dangers, and "slowing it down" and "fuzzing it up". And rather than conjecturing too far, we might allow that ROCOR proceeds for the good of the order along these lines. So I'd take the same statement and take it as a positive rather than a reason for disappointment, and when ROCOR does one day come to the table, it won't be under false pretenses, but in sincere truth. Can only hope the rest are as candid.
David,
You wrote,"A very wise Orthodox priest commented to the effect that there is no reason why these cultural artifacts could not remain even if jurisdictional unity were achieved. He was right. I was young and foolish, but he cut right through the naivete. There really is no reason at all we cannot maintain distinct cultural identity while having canonical unity. IMHO, the cultural issues are an excuse to maintain division, not a reason."
I believe that the retention of cultural identity can exist alongside an administratively united canonical Orthodox Church here in the states. however, I believe and this comes from my own experience, that the well-meaning intentions of those working to create an American Orthodox Church do so with the intent of eliminating any ethnic character in any parish. You can't use Greek anymore, because you're American Orthodox. You can't use Slavonic anymore, because you're American Orthodox. I'm not encouraging phyletism. I'm an American, but I prefer Greek to pray. I fear that the creation of an American Orthodox Church would strive to eliminate anything from the "old countries" because they're foreign.
I think the question to ask ourselves is what is more important: Unity of the faith or administrative unity? I would, of course, argue the former. The latter would be nice, but it is not required for the salvation of God's people.
Chris (not Jones)
Is it not rather interesting that the Bishop who began the discussion was not His Eminence,but rather His Grace Bishop Daniel of the Bulgarian Patriarchal Diocese. This quest for a unified jurisdiction in this country often tends to be more political than it is religious in nature. Frankly, It seems that time, repentence, patience, and clear thinking devoid of haughty overlordship on the part of some needs to be resolved. The Orthodox Church needs to focus more on preaching the Gospel in and out season, thereby leading all to the Throne of Christ.
Christ is the Heaqd of the Church and He alone can lead all of us to a greater unity when there is greater love and faithfulness.
ROCOR is attractive to me for the same reason that it attracted Thomas, because of its unambiguous stand in the culture wars and its unambiguous commitment to traditional Orthodoxy. But here is the problem. There is a ROCOR parish about ten minutes from me. The liturgy is beautiful, but Sunday school is in Russian and I can't even get a straight answer from the priest to the simple question, "When is confession available?" Everyone at St. Vladimir's is familiar with the parish's customs but no one seems interested in welcoming or teaching outsiders. It is a closed community. I am convinced by the claims of Orthodoxy but I don't know how to be a Christian alone, and as long as ROCOR insists on hiding it's light under a babushka, there doesn't seem to another option.
Didn't the Apostle say of people who put ethnic identity before worship of the God of Israel: "They do not please God and are contrary to all men"?
I am of two minds on this:
1. Propositional States are not real nations. A nation can have a proposition, but the proposition is not the nation. Orthodoxy, with its national Churches making up the global Body of Christ, does not really know what to make of mobile, modern propositional States. So the Russians are sticking to their own, actual nation. So do the Jews and lots of other people who carry their nation with them wherever they go.
2. As thanks for welcoming immigrants like this, America will never be a real nation. America--an English offshoot--has become a pretend-nation. A place where people drop in, extract what rents and transfer payments they can, then move on to the next, more enticing proposition. America has less amity than among the business owners at a shopping mall.
Post a Comment