Topic: Why must the church be united in America?

[bob]

As a good Canadian, I will apologize in advance if this is not the proper section or if this issue has been banned. 

As a Canadian, I'm pretty new to this whole issue of "unity" among the Orthodox churches.  It's not really that big of an issue up here as we have very few 3rd/4rth generation "ethnic" Orthodox who don't feel "ethnic" (um... you guys know what I mean right), and we have very few converts.  From afar, those two issues seems to be the main drivers behind this issue in the US.

I really don't understand why some believe there must be one Orthodox church administration.  How does it really help in anything?  In real terms, how does it help?  Frankly, I see more negatives.

It seems like the anti-GOA crowd doesn't understand that for a lot of Greeks who support the GOA, the Greek aspect is just as important, if not more important.   If they stopped supporting the GOA, many (most?) GOA churches and programs would disappear.  While I'm sure some would be happy, how would that really help Orthodoxy in the US?  It's the same in the other "ethnic" churches. (I guess this goes to a much bigger issue beyond Orthodoxy that too many people fail to see that religion and culture go hand-in-hand and are not two completely separate things).

It seems like one of the main complaints with GOA churches is the Greek fests, Greek language classes, Greek dancing groups, etc.  Yet I found it amusing somebody had posted somewhere (sorry I can't find it now), that his OCA (yes OCA) church's main income came from their annual Greek fest.  I realize one example is meaningless, but I found it amusing.

It seems people blame the "ethnic" stuff for dwindling church attendance.  So let me see if I understand properly.  People are not going to church on a Sunday morning in January because that church has a 2 day "Greek" fest in July? Or because 10 people go to Greek dancing class on a Tuesday night?  Or is it something else?  Having never been to a US church, do they hand out gyros or something during Sunday service?  (That might increase attendance.  )

I also find it amusing as a Canadian, that people whine about being "subject" to a foreign ruler in Istanbul or elsewhere, yet expect us Canadians to be subject to a foreign ruler in Washington, or wherever the American Orthodox church leader is supposed to be based.  Not just Canada, but all the Americas are supposed to be ruled by this new American pope? lol

Frankly, the real reason in this whole issue seems to be stereotypical American anti-foreign sentiments.  The Greeks/GOA get the worse of it simply because they are the biggest/richest Orthodox group/church.

I know I'm jumping all over the place, but like I said, this is a new issue to me.  Unfortunately, whatever happens in the US affects us in Canada.  I hope Orthodoxy grows and thrives everywhere, but I think not only is this supposed "unity" issue a complete waste of time and effort, it potentially will cause a lot more problems than good.

Again, like a good Canadian, I will apologize if this is opening a can of worms that should not be open.  But it is something that I am very interested in.  Also, if there are other forums where this is more appropriate, please PM me their address.

[ialmisry]

As a good Canadian, I will apologize in advance if this is not the proper section or if this issue has been banned. 

As a Canadian, I'm pretty new to this whole issue of "unity" among the Orthodox churches.  It's not really that big of an issue up here as we have very few 3rd/4rth generation "ethnic" Orthodox who don't feel "ethnic" (um... you guys know what I mean right), and we have very few converts.  From afar, those two issues seems to be the main drivers behind this issue in the US.

I really don't understand why some believe there must be one Orthodox church administration. 

The canons and dogma require it.  That One, Holy, Catholica and Apostolic thing.

How does it really help in anything?  In real terms, how does it help?  Frankly, I see more negatives.

It seems like the anti-GOA crowd doesn't understand that for a lot of Greeks who support the GOA, the Greek aspect is just as important, if not more important.

That in and of itself is a problem.  I thought the Greeks condemned phyletism as a heresy.  Or is that only when Bulgarians do it?

   If they stopped supporting the GOA, many (most?) GOA churches and programs would disappear.

Then they are dead already, and let the dead bury their dead.

  While I'm sure some would be happy, how would that really help Orthodoxy in the US? 

Make it clear that it is not an quaint part of the old country, but the Catholic Church.

It's the same in the other "ethnic" churches. (I guess this goes to a much bigger issue beyond Orthodoxy that too many people fail to see that religion and culture go hand-in-hand and are not two completely separate things).

It seems like one of the main complaints with GOA churches is the Greek fests, Greek language classes, Greek dancing groups, etc.  Yet I found it amusing somebody had posted somewhere (sorry I can't find it now), that his OCA (yes OCA) church's main income came from their annual Greek fest.  I realize one example is meaningless, but I found it amusing.

Even in the days of the Latin mass everywhere, you knew which was the Italian parish, the Polish, the Spanish etc.  Seeing religion and culture going hand in hand is not a problem.  The problem is when, unlike the Italian, Pole or Hispanic (who would always take you), the door is slammed in the face of those not of the tribe.

It seems people blame the "ethnic" stuff for dwindling church attendance.  So let me see if I understand properly.  People are not going to church on a Sunday morning in January because that church has a 2 day "Greek" fest in July? Or because 10 people go to Greek dancing class on a Tuesday night?  Or is it something else?  Having never been to a US church, do they hand out gyros or something during Sunday service?  (That might increase attendance.  )

How about the problem of a hours long service in a language you don't understand (especially when the coffee hour is in English)?  And then that question:how do they treat non Greeks in January, while they ask for their money in July?

I also find it amusing as a Canadian, that people whine about being "subject" to a foreign ruler in Istanbul or elsewhere, yet expect us Canadians to be subject to a foreign ruler in Washington, or wherever the American Orthodox church leader is supposed to be based.  Not just Canada, but all the Americas are supposed to be ruled by this new American pope? lol

We have seminaries in the US and dioceses with actual people and new monks and priests that the Church ordains and consecrates.  Istanbul has none of the above.  And unlike Istanbul, a non-American can be elected primate. Even a Canadian!

Frankly, the real reason in this whole issue seems to be stereotypical American anti-foreign sentiments.  The Greeks/GOA get the worse of it simply because they are the biggest/richest Orthodox group/church.

St. Tikhon didn't have any anti-foreign sentiments, but he saw the problems the Greeks were beginning to cause.

I know I'm jumping all over the place, but like I said, this is a new issue to me.  Unfortunately, whatever happens in the US affects us in Canada.  I hope Orthodoxy grows and thrives everywhere, but I think not only is this supposed "unity" issue a complete waste of time and effort, it potentially will cause a lot more problems than good.

Every other Orthodox Church in the World has One Church, at least in principle.  Here the principle isn't even accepted.

Again, like a good Canadian, I will apologize if this is opening a can of worms that should not be open.  But it is something that I am very interested in.  Also, if there are other forums where this is more appropriate, please PM me their address.

A couple months ago this was threshed out at the American Orthodox Institute.  I myself raised the issue of Canadian autocephaly.  No reason why it can't be discussed here.

[Punch]

I don't think that there is any reason for it.  It stems from man's pride and desire for power.  All Orthodox Christians are already united through Christ, and He is our head.  I actually like the variety that comes from the current situation.  I can walk into an Antiochian parish and hear the liturgy in their special way.  The Greeks with their Greek language have their own special flavor.  And, my favorite, the Russians and Serbs have theirs.  Yet in spite of this, it is the same liturgy (for the most part), the same prayers, and the same Faith.  A common administration would ruin the beauty of the current diversity.  I can see this in the Antiochian parish that I have recently started attending again.  When I first converted, I could not wait to get to Vespers to sing the Russian tones that were used back then.  Now those are gone.  I am sorry, but my ears cannot handle the wail of the Arabic / Byzantine tones.  To my ears, it sounds like a whale being tortured to death.  I also follow the Old Calendar.  I am happy that there is a Serbian Church in my town where I can worship and find peace.  And I am happy that there is an Antiochian Church where my wife can worship and find fellowship.  What makes me most happy is that both are ORTHODOX and both are the BODY OF CHRIST.  Like the Jews who still look for the Messiah after he has already come, the Unity crowd are looking to achieve what already is.

[arimethea]

Those who are against unity speak of a fear of loosing something that is being lost even without jurisdictional unity; that is diversity and ethnic peculiarities. Those who cry out for jurisdictional unity do so because of the problems that are a reality; that of the chaos and scandal it brings. Look through any of the previous 1000 threads on this subject and you will see the sad situation that exist wherever there are overlapping jurisdictions. Unity is call for an end to scandal not and end of diversity.

[monkvasyl]

No one says that a united Church has to follow one tradition and use only one language.  Each parish should be allowed to follow their customs, but under a united church.  It might also mean that they may, at times, require a bishop to minister to them who is familiar with their customs and language.  Look at the Catholic Church in America.  Its one church under one bishop per diocese, dioceses don't overlap, yet a Polish parish can have its mass in Polish and follow their particular customs, as can any other ethic group. 

[Iconodule]

I think it probably makes more sense for the unity of the North American Church to be based on geography rather than national borders. I think having separate Canadian, United States, and Mexican churches would be too much splitting at this point where we are still a small presence on the continent.

[88Devin12]

I think it probably makes more sense for the unity of the North American Church to be based on geography rather than national borders. I think having separate Canadian, United States, and Mexican churches would be too much splitting at this point where we are still a small presence on the continent.

Exactly... I would love to eventually see each area have it's own Church. It isn't so much about a foreign power, it's about having a shepherd on our home turf that we can appoint and that is from amongst us. Who knows our problems and who knows us because he is one of us.

As for "ethnicity", as ialmisry said, it isn't about embracing one's ethnic identity, it's about letting one's ethnic identity get in the way of him/her and fellow Christians.

Our specific parish embraces the ethnic identities in it whether they be Russian, Greek, Ukrainian, Romanian, Lebanese, or even Hillbilly. We definitely do celebrate a Greek Festival every year, however this is solely for evangelism and to earn money for the Church. We do this to get people to the Church so they can learn about Holy Orthodoxy. We embrace the ethnic identity of others in the Church. However, we don't slam the door in people's faces when they come to our church and don't fit any ethnic category. It also isn't really about diversity in a single parish. As I said, it doesn't matter what the ethnic makeup of your parish is, just as long as you don't let it get in the way of you and other Christians.

[ialmisry]

I don't think that there is any reason for it.  It stems from man's pride and desire for power. 

Au contraire, if we look at the history of the subject, that is how we got into this mess of disunity.

All Orthodox Christians are already united through Christ, and He is our head.  I actually like the variety that comes from the current situation.  I can walk into an Antiochian parish and hear the liturgy in their special way.  The Greeks with their Greek language have their own special flavor.  And, my favorite, the Russians and Serbs have theirs.  Yet in spite of this, it is the same liturgy (for the most part), the same prayers, and the same Faith.  A common administration would ruin the beauty of the current diversity.  I can see this in the Antiochian parish that I have recently started attending again.  When I first converted, I could not wait to get to Vespers to sing the Russian tones that were used back then.  Now those are gone.

I'm confused.  Since the Antichian Archdiocese hasn't been take over by the Russians, how did a common administration ruin the beauty of the variety that comes from the current situation ?

  I am sorry, but my ears cannot handle the wail of the Arabic / Byzantine tones.  To my ears, it sounds like a whale being tortured to death.  I also follow the Old Calendar.  I am happy that there is a Serbian Church in my town where I can worship and find peace.  And I am happy that there is an Antiochian Church where my wife can worship and find fellowship.  What makes me most happy is that both are ORTHODOX and both are the BODY OF CHRIST.  Like the Jews who still look for the Messiah after he has already come, the Unity crowd are looking to achieve what already is.

How about all that concelebration going on in Boston for the Triumph of Orthodoxy?

[ialmisry]

I think it probably makes more sense for the unity of the North American Church to be based on geography rather than national borders. I think having separate Canadian, United States, and Mexican churches would be too much splitting at this point where we are still a small presence on the continent.

Exactly... I would love to eventually see each area have it's own Church. It isn't so much about a foreign power, it's about having a shepherd on our home turf that we can appoint and that is from amongst us. Who knows our problems and who knows us because he is one of us.

The suggestions I made at the American Orthodox Institute including a present set up where Canada, the US and Mexico were united, but with an eye to them eventualy becoming three Autocephalous Churches. One was to have a Primate in New York as oppposed to Washington, with the idea that the bishop of Washington will eventually become the primate of US, when Canada and Mexico will have their seperate primates.  Another thing was to have a system of Archbishops, each one of which will have as part of his episcopal duties act as a defender of a usage, as the ROCOR PA bishop is also the "Defender of the Old Rite (Edinovery)," e.g. the Archbishop of New Orleans would be Defender of Greek Usage, i.e. approve Greek liturgical texts for North America, be a point man of appeal on the Holy Synod about issues of the Greeks etc.  The present GOA cathedral in New York I would have as a metochion for Constantinople, among others I would have to assure the ethnics that their color isn't going to be blanched out.  One of the reasons I would want the North American Church remain united is that a Ukrainian bishop can serve that function now in Canada, but I think the US would need some development.

[pious1]

So if all the Orthodox would unite under one branch, who is to be the leader? Moscow? Constantinople? Are some of my fellow Orthodox looking for a model like that of the Roman Catholics? I believe that all the churches, Russian, Greek, Ukrainian, Romanian, ect should have thier own patriarchate and own traditions. We talk about ethnicity getting in the way of Christianity but it was the Orthodox religion that has been and will always be a big part of the national culture. It is the Orthodox Church that has helped preserved the language and national identity of many of the nations that adhere to it when those nations were under regimes which sought to eliminate the national identity of said country. The idea of an stricly American chuch is a nice idea but do to the US being a melting pot of different nationalities, lets face it, waht is the "American nationality?"

Ever notice during world cup soccer very few cheer on team USA but rather Greek Americans cheer on team Greece, Italian Americans cheer on team Italy, Russian Americans cheer on team Russia, ect. That is because there is a lack of national identity in this country which I admit is sad. I personally am a proud American of Ukrainian descent (2nd generation) but would much rather be in a Ukrainian church which has the language and tradition which is a big part of who I am. I doubt I would ever go to an English speaking OCA church just because I would feel uncomfertable. Although God does not care which language or ethnic parish you go to service to, I believe that there is nothing worng with going where you feel comfertable.

[Punch]

I'm confused.  Since the Antichian Archdiocese hasn't been take over by the Russians, how did a common administration ruin the beauty of the variety that comes from the current situation ?

Sorry for the confusion (really).  The Priest of the Church came from the Ben Lomond mess, and I guess that sometime after I left, all those priests were whipped into shape and services "standardized" per the Antiochian service book.  My point is who is to say that would not happen if there were "jurisdictional unity".  If Met. Phillip were to take over the whole United States, would the Serbs also have to follow the Antiochian service books?  I'm afraid that the scandal and mess that we see with American Orthodoxy has nothing to do with jurisdictional disunity, but with mismanagement and power hungry leaders.  Where this does not exist, the different Churches get together pretty well. 

As to the rest of your post, I am confused.  Are you saying that the problems we have are NOT caused by man's pride and love of power?  And as to the concelebration in Boston.  I know nothing about that.  I know that there is considerable concelebration and cooperating here in Omaha, pretty much proving that spiritual unity already exists.  I don't see how political unity will improve anything.  Again, it seems that most of the problems stem from love of money and power, not any real spiritual issue.

[genesisone]

The suggestions I made at the American Orthodox Institute including a present set up where Canada, the US and Mexico were united, but with an eye to them eventualy becoming three Autocephalous Churches. One was to have a Primate in New York as oppposed to Washington, with the idea that the bishop of Washington will eventually become the primate of US, when Canada and Mexico will have their seperate primates.  Another thing was to have a system of Archbishops, each one of which will have as part of his episcopal duties act as a defender of a usage, as the ROCOR PA bishop is also the "Defender of the Old Rite (Edinovery)," e.g. the Archbishop of New Orleans would be Defender of Greek Usage, i.e. approve Greek liturgical texts for North America, be a point man of appeal on the Holy Synod about issues of the Greeks etc.  The present GOA cathedral in New York I would have as a metochion for Constantinople, among others I would have to assure the ethnics that their color isn't going to be blanched out.  One of the reasons I would want the North American Church remain united is that a Ukrainian bishop can serve that function now in Canada, but I think the US would need some development.

Speaking as a Canadian, I do agree with this concept. Eventually, I would like to see a separation the Canadian and US church, but that isn't practical. My former Protestant denomination began as an appendage of its US parent, and gradually transitioned into an administratively independent body. I was pleased and honoured to be part of that process during the last quarter of the twentieth century. I would hope that in terms of geography that a diocese would conform to borders between countries (always) and between provinces/states as much as is practical. And certainly nothing, I hope, would prevent Canadian dioceses from some sort of association or cooperation for purely Canadian interests (e.g. legal issues, dealing with relief work within Canada, planning for the establishing of new parishes).

[augustin717]

Every other Orthodox Church in the World has One Church, at least in principle.  Here the principle isn't even accepted.

Well, this is not an orthodox country. Orthodoxy is still a small, foreign and exotic presence here. Someone called it a "boutique religion".

[genesisone]

I'm afraid that the scandal and mess that we see with American Orthodoxy has nothing to do with jurisdictional disunity, but with mismanagement and power hungry leaders.  Where this does not exist, the different Churches get together pretty well. 

I'm not sure where you mean - UK? Australia? South America? Perhaps our friends in those places can enlighten us about "scandal and mess" in those parts of the world.

As to the rest of your post, I am confused.  Are you saying that the problems we have are NOT caused by man's pride and love of power?  And as to the concelebration in Boston.  I know nothing about that.  I know that there is considerable concelebration and cooperating here in Omaha, pretty much proving that spiritual unity already exists.  I don't see how political unity will improve anything.  Again, it seems that most of the problems stem from love of money and power, not any real spiritual issue.

I disagree. I believe a larger body would be more effectively managed. Part of the problem with jurisdictional disunity now is that each jurisdiction spends great effort trying to maintain its own raison d'etre. "Power hungry leaders" would no longer enjoy the support they have within their own jurisdictions.

Unfortunately, and I know this seems to conflict with our duty to be submissive to our hierarchs, but this movement will simply have to come from the bottom up. As you have pointed out, things usually work out well on the local level.

[katherineofdixie]

Ever notice during world cup soccer very few cheer on team USA but rather Greek Americans cheer on team Greece, Italian Americans cheer on team Italy, Russian Americans cheer on team Russia, ect. That is because there is a lack of national identity in this country which I admit is sad.

No, they don't cheer on team USA because most Americans don't care about soccer, unless their kids are playing it. We care about real football.  

There most certainly is a national identity in this country - you may not like it or it may not look like national identities in other countries, but that's because this country is unique.
My best guess is that the nationalism/ethnic identity issue will resolve itself in the next generation or so. It's a natural process of assimilation.
If anyone wants to know what an "American Orthodox Church" would look like, read what St. Tikhon had to say on the subject.

[ialmisry]

Every other Orthodox Church in the World has One Church, at least in principle.  Here the principle isn't even accepted.

Well, this is not an orthodox country.

And that's reletive how?

Niether was 1st century Palestine. Nor the Roman empire until 381.

Neither is the Turkish Republic, Egypt, Syria, 21st Century Palestine, Albania, Poland, the Czech Repblic, nor Slovakia.

Neither is the whole continent of Africa (except Ethiopia and Eritreia, and that only if OO counts).

The argument can be made that Alaska is an Orthodox state.  And Pennsylvania nearly as Orthodox as the Churches at the end of the diptychs.

Diaspora isn't Greek for "do as you please." The canons are still in force. And this isn't "diaspora" country. Even the EP says "so-called" now.

Orthodoxy is still a small,

and some are hell-[word carefully chosen]bent on keeping it that way by keeping it

foreign

and insiting on the Orthodox here be in eternal reference to some "homeland" thousands of miles away so that it remains

and exotic presence here.

Someone called it a "boutique religion".

Others call it America's best kept secret.  Our Lord doesn't like such secrets being kept. Matthew 10:27, 5:13-6.

I'm still a little curious about this:

Being Romanian myself, I sometimes find all-English /mostly convert/mostly white churches to be quite ethnic and off-putting to me. I've heard a few other Eastern European friends say the same.

Are you in Eastern Europe?

No. I'm in America, currently.

[ialmisry]

So if all the Orthodox would unite under one branch, who is to be the leader? Moscow? Constantinople? Are some of my fellow Orthodox looking for a model like that of the Roman Catholics? I believe that all the churches, Russian, Greek, Ukrainian, Romanian, ect should have thier own patriarchate and own traditions. We talk about ethnicity getting in the way of Christianity but it was the Orthodox religion that has been and will always be a big part of the national culture. It is the Orthodox Church that has helped preserved the language and national identity of many of the nations that adhere to it when those nations were under regimes which sought to eliminate the national identity of said country. The idea of an stricly American chuch is a nice idea but do to the US being a melting pot of different nationalities, lets face it, waht is the "American nationality?"

Ever notice during world cup soccer very few cheer on team USA but rather Greek Americans cheer on team Greece, Italian Americans cheer on team Italy, Russian Americans cheer on team Russia, ect. That is because there is a lack of national identity in this country which I admit is sad. I personally am a proud American of Ukrainian descent (2nd generation) but would much rather be in a Ukrainian church which has the language and tradition which is a big part of who I am. I doubt I would ever go to an English speaking OCA church just because I would feel uncomfertable. Although God does not care which language or ethnic parish you go to service to, I believe that there is nothing worng with going where you feel comfertable.

Including going with other English, Scotts, Irish, Germans,etc. who have no interest in becoming Russian, Ukrainian, Greek, Arab, Romanian, etc.

Your world soccer cup image is perhaps misplaced.  Its still not an American game, and it has always been my experience that the more ethnically orientated are the ones involved with it in the first place.  There was plenty of rooting for the Americans in the Olympics, including my sons but not me.

[augustin717]

I'm still a little curious about this:
Quote from: augustin717 on February 25, 2010, 04:35:29 PM
Being Romanian myself, I sometimes find all-English /mostly convert/mostly white churches to be quite ethnic and off-putting to me. I've heard a few other Eastern European friends say the same.
Quote from: augustin717 on February 25, 2010, 07:22:15 PM
Quote
Are you in Eastern Europe?
No. I'm in America, currently.

Yeah, like being very ideologically determined on NEVER saying a "Lord have mercy" in any other language than English, even when you have plenty of people there whose native language is not English.
Now, that I also see as phyletism.
And really, I'd have no problem with this if they just had the guts to say it: we wanna keep this church purely American/English/Scottish etc; instead you'd be sermonized on how improper is of you to ever have this kind of thoughts.

[ialmisry]

I'm confused.  Since the Antichian Archdiocese hasn't been take over by the Russians, how did a common administration ruin the beauty of the variety that comes from the current situation ?

Sorry for the confusion (really).  The Priest of the Church came from the Ben Lomond mess, and I guess that sometime after I left, all those priests were whipped into shape and services "standardized" per the Antiochian service book.  My point is who is to say that would not happen if there were "jurisdictional unity".  If Met. Phillip were to take over the whole United States, would the Serbs also have to follow the Antiochian service books?  I'm afraid that the scandal and mess that we see with American Orthodoxy has nothing to do with jurisdictional disunity, but with mismanagement and power hungry leaders.

Which is how the jurisdictional unity came into existence, thanks to Met./Archp/Exarch/EP/Pope Meltios the many numbered.  Talk about power hungry.

  Where this does not exist, the different Churches get together pretty well.

And the union crowd is strongest.

As to the rest of your post, I am confused.  Are you saying that the problems we have are NOT caused by man's pride and love of power?

No, lke jurisdictional disunity, they have that same source.

And as to the concelebration in Boston.  I know nothing about that.

The Greek Metropolitan has banned concelebration with the OCA, since they dare have a bishop in Boston.  I think Pan Orthodox celebrations have ceased, IIRC.

I know that there is considerable concelebration and cooperating here in Omaha, pretty much proving that spiritual unity already exists.

You even have Western Rite Orthodox there, so I won't dispute it.

  I don't see how political unity will improve anything. 

It's canonical unity, not political unity. Political unity is what the Ultarmontanists at the Vatican talk about when trying to discredit Orthodox ecclesiology.

Again, it seems that most of the problems stem from love of money and power, not any real spiritual issue.

You're right. And if spiritual values were in the forefront, we would have remained a united Church here.

[88Devin12]

I'm still a little curious about this:
Quote from: augustin717 on February 25, 2010, 04:35:29 PM
Being Romanian myself, I sometimes find all-English /mostly convert/mostly white churches to be quite ethnic and off-putting to me. I've heard a few other Eastern European friends say the same.
Quote from: augustin717 on February 25, 2010, 07:22:15 PM
Quote
Are you in Eastern Europe?
No. I'm in America, currently.

Yeah, like being very ideologically determined on NEVER saying a "Lord have mercy" in any other language than English, even when you have plenty of people there whose native language is not English.
Now, that I also see as phyletism.
And really, I'd have no problem with this if they just had the guts to say it: we wanna keep this church purely American/English/Scottish etc; instead you'd be sermonized on how improper is of you to ever have this kind of thoughts.

I don't think anyone is arguing for that. However, in America, English IS the dominant language. 96% of Americans (in the US) speak English well... In Canada, about 67% speak English with about 21% speaking French. In Mexico, Spanish is the de facto common language.
Therefore, when I go to churches in the U.S., I expect them to be in English. If I go to Canada, i'd expect them to either be in French or English. If I went to Mexico, then I'd expect them to be in Spanish.

It isn't about imposing my (or anyone else's) ethnicity on someone else. It's about keeping the Liturgy in the de facto common language of the area it's in.

[arimethea]

So if all the Orthodox would unite under one branch, who is to be the leader? Moscow? Constantinople? Are some of my fellow Orthodox looking for a model like that of the Roman Catholics? I believe that all the churches, Russian, Greek, Ukrainian, Romanian, ect should have thier own patriarchate and own traditions. We talk about ethnicity getting in the way of Christianity but it was the Orthodox religion that has been and will always be a big part of the national culture. It is the Orthodox Church that has helped preserved the language and national identity of many of the nations that adhere to it when those nations were under regimes which sought to eliminate the national identity of said country. The idea of an stricly American chuch is a nice idea but do to the US being a melting pot of different nationalities, lets face it, waht is the "American nationality?"

It seems that the issue is the way we look at the problem or lack of problem as the case may be. The Orthodox Church has always been divided by territory to better administrate the Church. This idea of the territory being divided based on political nation state defined territories only comes into full realization after WWI. The truth of the matter is until the collapse of the Roman Empire the Orthodox Church was entirely Roman. Diversity is not the issue but rather it is good order. The issue at hand is a New World & Western Europe problem that in turn causes bad practices in the Old World.

[ialmisry]

I'm still a little curious about this:
Quote from: augustin717 on February 25, 2010, 04:35:29 PM
Being Romanian myself, I sometimes find all-English /mostly convert/mostly white churches to be quite ethnic and off-putting to me. I've heard a few other Eastern European friends say the same.
Quote from: augustin717 on February 25, 2010, 07:22:15 PM
Quote
Are you in Eastern Europe?
No. I'm in America, currently.

Yeah, like being very ideologically determined on NEVER saying a "Lord have mercy" in any other language than English, even when you have plenty of people there whose native language is not English.
Now, that I also see as phyletism.
And really, I'd have no problem with this if they just had the guts to say it: we wanna keep this church purely American/English/Scottish etc; instead you'd be sermonized on how improper is of you to ever have this kind of thoughts.

Well, you are in THEIR country. And with the word "currently," it seems you do not intend to stay.
Given the linguistic policy of the Greeks and Romanians back in their home jurisidcitons, I'm not sure they are the best candidates for speck removal from the Amercan's (since you evdiently left the Canadians and Mexicans, along with the Aleuts, Tlignit etc. out of the equation, I'll lay them aside too)eye. They have to deal with that forest first.

[ialmisry]

I'm still a little curious about this:
Quote from: augustin717 on February 25, 2010, 04:35:29 PM
Being Romanian myself, I sometimes find all-English /mostly convert/mostly white churches to be quite ethnic and off-putting to me. I've heard a few other Eastern European friends say the same.
Quote from: augustin717 on February 25, 2010, 07:22:15 PM
Quote
Are you in Eastern Europe?
No. I'm in America, currently.

Yeah, like being very ideologically determined on NEVER saying a "Lord have mercy" in any other language than English, even when you have plenty of people there whose native language is not English.
Now, that I also see as phyletism.
And really, I'd have no problem with this if they just had the guts to say it: we wanna keep this church purely American/English/Scottish etc; instead you'd be sermonized on how improper is of you to ever have this kind of thoughts.

I don't think anyone is arguing for that. However, in America, English IS the dominant language. 96% of Americans (in the US) speak English well... In Canada, about 67% speak English with about 21% speaking French. In Mexico, Spanish is the de facto common language.
Therefore, when I go to churches in the U.S., I expect them to be in English. If I go to Canada, i'd expect them to either be in French or English. If I went to Mexico, then I'd expect them to be in Spanish.

It isn't about imposing my (or anyone else's) ethnicity on someone else. It's about keeping the Liturgy in the de facto common language of the area it's in.

Since it seems Augustin has targeted the OCA, I'll just add that Met. Jonah made a specific appeal in Russia for Russian missionaries to learn Mayan to help with the designs on Guatamala (the topic of the cross referenced thread).

[arimethea]

I'm confused.  Since the Antichian Archdiocese hasn't been take over by the Russians, how did a common administration ruin the beauty of the variety that comes from the current situation ?

Sorry for the confusion (really).  The Priest of the Church came from the Ben Lomond mess, and I guess that sometime after I left, all those priests were whipped into shape and services "standardized" per the Antiochian service book.  My point is who is to say that would not happen if there were "jurisdictional unity".  If Met. Phillip were to take over the whole United States, would the Serbs also have to follow the Antiochian service books?  I'm afraid that the scandal and mess that we see with American Orthodoxy has nothing to do with jurisdictional disunity, but with mismanagement and power hungry leaders.  Where this does not exist, the different Churches get together pretty well. 

There was more to the issues in Ben Lomond then liturgical practice. Liturgical practice was the piety card that was being played to shift focus away from the real issue of property and obedience to the Bishops.

It is interesting though that you bring up forcing Antiochian service books because it made me think of something that is happening very naturally. The Liturgikon that is produced by the Antiochian Archdiocese is becoming the standard liturgical text in English that is being used, not because anyone is forcing it upon people, but because it is very traditional and well put together. The good books are what will be the standard because they are good not because a Bishop decrees that they be used.

[ialmisry]

The truth of the matter is until the collapse of the Roman Empire the Orthodox Church was entirely Roman.

Actually no. Armenia and Ethiopia were Orhtodox by anyone's definition at least until 451, but not part of the Empire. The Greek accounts of the conversion of Georgia state explicitely that Constantine stated a preference for the expansion of the Church rather than his empire.  Ireland and Scotland were never Roman, but they were once Orthodox. The English Church arose in post Roman Britain: refugees from the 1054 schism imposition by the Normans came to Constantinople, such that the Emperor had a recruiting office in London for the Varangian Guard.  The Empire of the West fell, but the Hispanic, Gallic, North African, etc. Churches remained Orthodox for some time.  And Norway and the rest of Scandinavian entered Orthodoxy, but was carried away by schism. And then there is the issue that with the rise of the Caliphate, three Patriarchs and often the archbishop of Cyprus found themselves outside the Empire.

But I agree: good order as the manifestation of the unity of the universal Orthodox Church is the issue.

[augustin717]

I'm still a little curious about this:
Quote from: augustin717 on February 25, 2010, 04:35:29 PM
Being Romanian myself, I sometimes find all-English /mostly convert/mostly white churches to be quite ethnic and off-putting to me. I've heard a few other Eastern European friends say the same.
Quote from: augustin717 on February 25, 2010, 07:22:15 PM
Quote
Are you in Eastern Europe?
No. I'm in America, currently.

Yeah, like being very ideologically determined on NEVER saying a "Lord have mercy" in any other language than English, even when you have plenty of people there whose native language is not English.
Now, that I also see as phyletism.
And really, I'd have no problem with this if they just had the guts to say it: we wanna keep this church purely American/English/Scottish etc; instead you'd be sermonized on how improper is of you to ever have this kind of thoughts.

Well, you are in THEIR country. And with the word "currently," it seems you do not intend to stay.
Given the linguistic policy of the Greeks and Romanians back in their home jurisidcitons, I'm not sure they are the best candidates for speck removal from the Amercan's (since you evdiently left the Canadians and Mexicans, along with the Aleuts, Tlignit etc. out of the equation, I'll lay them aside too)eye. They have to deal with that forest first.

The Romanian cathedral (archdiocese) uses some English, from what I remember, although it is not that much needed, given the demographics there. They do it out of respect for the country they live in now.In Romania there are quite a few other languages used in church, depending on demographics: Gypsy, Hungarian, Greek, Serbian, Ukrainian/Slavonic or French in the Francophone world, where we do some mission, believe it or not.
But I have seen places where the refusal is PURELY ideological and tramples on any demographics. I have been told that saying a "Gospodi pomilui" in an otherwise all English service would make Americans FEEL excluded Then I had the epiphany: we, non Americans, that also gave money-less probably, not having very well paid jobs, and did plenty of very menial work there, didn't even exist.

[ialmisry]

I'm still a little curious about this:
Quote from: augustin717 on February 25, 2010, 04:35:29 PM
Being Romanian myself, I sometimes find all-English /mostly convert/mostly white churches to be quite ethnic and off-putting to me. I've heard a few other Eastern European friends say the same.
Quote from: augustin717 on February 25, 2010, 07:22:15 PM
Quote
Are you in Eastern Europe?
No. I'm in America, currently.

Yeah, like being very ideologically determined on NEVER saying a "Lord have mercy" in any other language than English, even when you have plenty of people there whose native language is not English.
Now, that I also see as phyletism.
And really, I'd have no problem with this if they just had the guts to say it: we wanna keep this church purely American/English/Scottish etc; instead you'd be sermonized on how improper is of you to ever have this kind of thoughts.

Well, you are in THEIR country. And with the word "currently," it seems you do not intend to stay.
Given the linguistic policy of the Greeks and Romanians back in their home jurisidcitons, I'm not sure they are the best candidates for speck removal from the Amercan's (since you evdiently left the Canadians and Mexicans, along with the Aleuts, Tlignit etc. out of the equation, I'll lay them aside too)eye. They have to deal with that forest first.

The Romanian cathedral (archdiocese) uses some English, from what I remember, although it is not that much needed, given the demographics there. They do it out of respect for the country they live in now.In Romania there are quite a few other languages used in church, depending on demographics: Gypsy, Hungarian, Greek, Serbian, Ukrainian/Slavonic or French in the Francophone world, where we do some mission, believe it or not.
But I have seen places where the refusal is PURELY ideological and tramples on any demographics. I have been told that saying a "Gospodi pomilui" in an otherwise all English service would make Americans FEEL excluded Then I had the epiphany: we, non Americans, that also gave money-less probably, not having very well paid jobs, and did plenty of very menial work there, didn't even exist.

I think you have come in at the end of the movie. Up until recently (meaning, within your lifetime), English was a rarity.  On a history:
http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/12/language-in-american-orthodoxy-1916-reposted-from-82109/#comments

Btw, this, after the first English speaking Orthodox in America, the Virginian Philip Ludwell III, converted at the Russia Embassy Church of London in 1738.

[Alveus Lacuna]

When I first converted, I could not wait to get to Vespers to sing the Russian tones that were used back then.  Now those are gone.  I am sorry, but my ears cannot handle the wail of the Arabic / Byzantine tones.  To my ears, it sounds like a whale being tortured to death.  I also follow the Old Calendar.  I am happy that there is a Serbian Church in my town where I can worship and find peace.  And I am happy that there is an Antiochian Church where my wife can worship and find fellowship.  What makes me most happy is that both are ORTHODOX and both are the BODY OF CHRIST.  Like the Jews who still look for the Messiah after he has already come, the Unity crowd are looking to achieve what already is.

It looks like you're still pandering to your personal tastes rather than submitting to your local bishop, which is really what Orthodoxy is all about.

Do you think people in Russia with an "ear" for Byzantine chant can go shopping for a parish that is more to their liking?  No.  They go to the closest church, which listens to what their bishop says.  I actually prefer Byzantine chant, and a lot of the polyphony that I hear in Slavic parishes makes me feel like I'm in Disneyland rather than in Heaven.  Does that mean I'm going to pack up and go to another parish that does tones more to my liking, or go to a separate church from my wife so we each get what we want out of our churchgoing experience?  By no means.  I prefer to keep my savvy consumer mentality out of the temple of God.  There are some things I don't like about the rubrics in my particular church, or any other number of churches in my area. 

I am there because I want the Truth.  If that means swallowing a couple of bitter pills in the way the liturgy is conducted then so be it.  Standing for 2 1/2 hours isn't pleasant, and neither need be the chanting tones.  What matters is the truth of the prayers and the power of the Eucharist.

Being able to hop between bishops based on our own preferences, whims and convictions is entirely foreign to Orthodoxy.  Do I feel like attending an Old or New Calendar church?  Bearded clergy or smooth faced? Byzantine or polyphonic chant?  Pews or open standing?  What would I like the most?  These questions are for the bishop to deal with if they even are an issue, and it's because of our individualist consumer mentality in American Orthodoxy that we need administrative unity. 

We need to learn what it means to submit to a bishop, not to choose one.

[John of the North]

I really don't understand why some believe there must be one Orthodox church administration.

Because it makes no sense for there to be a bishop in my Canadian city, when we have parishes in the same city who commemorate a bishop that is not only almost 1400 miles away, but in the United States.

I also find it amusing as a Canadian, that people whine about being "subject" to a foreign ruler in Istanbul or elsewhere, yet expect us Canadians to be subject to a foreign ruler in Washington, or wherever the American Orthodox church leader is supposed to be based.  Not just Canada, but all the Americas are supposed to be ruled by this new American pope?

I concur.

I think it probably makes more sense for the unity of the North American Church to be based on geography rather than national borders. I think having separate Canadian, United States, and Mexican churches would be too much splitting at this point where we are still a small presence on the continent.

Our small presence is not hindering those who claim that North America should be autocephalous with their own Patriarch.

Speaking as a Canadian, I do agree with this concept. Eventually, I would like to see a separation the Canadian and US church, but that isn't practical.

How isn't it practical??

And certainly nothing, I hope, would prevent Canadian dioceses from some sort of association or cooperation for purely Canadian interests (e.g. legal issues, dealing with relief work within Canada, planning for the establishing of new parishes).

It's almost a legal necessity now for Canadian church activities to be separate from our American counterparts. There is no reason we can't be an autonomous church now, under Moscow or Constantinople.

[ialmisry]

I really don't understand why some believe there must be one Orthodox church administration.

Because it makes no sense for there to be a bishop in my Canadian city, when we have parishes in the same city who commemorate a bishop that is not only almost 1400 miles away, but in the United States.

What parishes would that be?

I also find it amusing as a Canadian, that people whine about being "subject" to a foreign ruler in Istanbul or elsewhere, yet expect us Canadians to be subject to a foreign ruler in Washington, or wherever the American Orthodox church leader is supposed to be based.  Not just Canada, but all the Americas are supposed to be ruled by this new American pope?

I concur.

LOL. That was done by Lieutenant Governor of Canada and the territorial legislature in 1908.
http://books.google.com/books?id=9l4vAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=northwest+territories+first+orthodox+church&source=bl&ots=PNecwbNsxP&sig=faH2t_YmTDgfUj0H0s4qkKmIROQ&hl=en&ei=4GudSubXAY3iMNLJ9JAC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Blame them.

I think it probably makes more sense for the unity of the North American Church to be based on geography rather than national borders. I think having separate Canadian, United States, and Mexican churches would be too much splitting at this point where we are still a small presence on the continent.

Our small presence is not hindering those who claim that North America should be autocephalous with their own Patriarch.

So Met. Jonah can count on Met. Constantine's vote, no?

Speaking as a Canadian, I do agree with this concept. Eventually, I would like to see a separation the Canadian and US church, but that isn't practical.

How isn't it practical??

Numbers. And canons.

And certainly nothing, I hope, would prevent Canadian dioceses from some sort of association or cooperation for purely Canadian interests (e.g. legal issues, dealing with relief work within Canada, planning for the establishing of new parishes).

It's almost a legal necessity now for Canadian church activities to be separate from our American counterparts. There is no reason we can't be an autonomous church now, under Moscow or Constantinople.

The Tomos of 1970.  And canons.

[John of the North]

What parishes would that be?

The Antiochian parishes commemorate Bishop Joseph in LA. The Romanians commemorate Archbishop Nicolae. In fact, even talking about Canadian bishops, it's pretty bad. The OCA churches in my city are over 1700 miles from their episcopal seat. The Greeks are over 2000 miles from theirs. The Serbs are about 1600 miles as well.

LOL. That was done by Lieutenant Governor of Canada and the territorial legislature in 1908.
http://books.google.com/books?id=9l4vAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=northwest+territories+first+orthodox+church&source=bl&ots=PNecwbNsxP&sig=faH2t_YmTDgfUj0H0s4qkKmIROQ&hl=en&ei=4GudSubXAY3iMNLJ9JAC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Blame them.

Actually, technically it was King Edward VII. But no matter, it makes sense when there was no resident bishop in Canada at that time, to be under the jurisdiction of a foreign bishop. But that isn't really the issue. The issue is that, if the Canadian church is currently answering to Constantinople or wherever now, then to be under a bishop in New York or DC, doesn't really advance the status of Canadian church unity. We are no better off, and some would argue, we are actually worse off.

So Met. Jonah can count on Met. Constantine's vote, no?

Metropolitan Constantine??

Numbers. And canons.

Is there some canon I am unaware of that states that the Canadian church should be under the jurisdiction of the United States until they reach a certain magical number of congregants??

The Tomos of 1970.  And canons.

Ah yes, the Tomos. Except the MP still has parishes in North America, and there are still ROCOR parishes as well. The Tomos is not a great harbinger for church unity...it took two jurisdictions and made them three.

[augustin717]

Therefore, when I go to churches in the U.S., I expect them to be in English. If I go to Canada, i'd expect them to either be in French or English. If I went to Mexico, then I'd expect them to be in Spanish.

It isn't about imposing my (or anyone else's) ethnicity on someone else. It's about keeping the Liturgy in the de facto common language of the area it's in.

For God's sake: we were talking only about a "Lord have mercy" here and  there in a language other than English. But even that was toooo much for the dominant ethnicity that would feel "not part of it" and "excluded".
Now this I call nationalism and xenophobia. All in the most "non-ethnic" church.

[genesisone]

Speaking as a Canadian, I do agree with this concept. Eventually, I would like to see a separation the Canadian and US church, but that isn't practical.

How isn't it practical??

Part of what I'm meaning here is simply the mere numbers involved. In both countries, the Orthodox seem to number a bit over 1% of the total population, so the US must have about 10 times the number of Orthodox Christians and resources. By this I'm meaning things like publishing houses, seminaries, and the like. Please note that I'm making no value judgements on quality concerning any existing institution on either side of the border. Various outreach efforts such as Ancient Faith Radio, and even orthodoxchristianity-dot-net are US based. Although these things are valued by Orthodox around the world, certainly Canadian Orthodox rely and take advantage of what is available in the US more than people more geographically distant. As I also stated, I DO think that eventually there can and should be a distinctly Canadian Orthodox Church. I just don't think it's a good idea to try to reach too many goals all at the same time, so first North America, then nations of our continent.

[88Devin12]

Therefore, when I go to churches in the U.S., I expect them to be in English. If I go to Canada, i'd expect them to either be in French or English. If I went to Mexico, then I'd expect them to be in Spanish.

It isn't about imposing my (or anyone else's) ethnicity on someone else. It's about keeping the Liturgy in the de facto common language of the area it's in.

For God's sake: we were talking only about a "Lord have mercy" here and  there in a language other than English. But even that was toooo much for the dominant ethnicity that would feel "not part of it" and "excluded".
Now this I call nationalism and xenophobia. All in the most "non-ethnic" church.

I'm sorry if you misunderstood, but I never said that saying some "Lord Have Mercies" in another language is bad. All I said was that the Liturgy must be in the de-facto language of the area its in. That doesn't mean a group cannot say "Lord Have Mercy" in another language. That simply means that the vast majority of the Liturgy should be in the common language.

It's the same principle as "Christ is Risen" at Pascha... Our Parish, and most parishes I've been to seem to say "Christ is Risen" in English as well as other languages. At our parish, we say it in English, Church Slavonic, Greek & Romanian. However, we simply do not sing anything else in other languages because it would probably be too difficult for many in the choir, including myself. I even asked if we could sing the Paschal Troparion in another language as well as English, but we most likely won't because of how difficult it would be.

I don't think you realize how hard it is to speak things in a language other than your native one if you don't know any other languages. It's easy to say "Gospodi Pomilui" or "Kyrie Eleison". It's also easy to say "Voistinu Voskrese" and "Adevărat a înviat". However, it's not so easy to sing the whole troparion in another language if you don't know it.

The Liturgy and services ought to be in the de facto language of the people. (this includes those outside the church in the city/region as well)
However, I never said that means you cannot have something like a few "Lord Have Mercies" in another language.

Also, The OCA and other jurisdictions don't enforce any specific chants either. Yes, most OCA churches use Russian style chants like Znamenny or Valaam. But there are some who I've seen use Alaskan melody. I've even heard recordings of OCA Churches using Byzantine or Athos style chanting. Our choir is trying to see if we can do some Byzantine style chanting for Lent.

I'm not going to say all OCA or American churches are perfect, we certainly are not perfect. I also will not say that we cannot be ethnic, we can also be ethnic. However, what I'm saying is, that I am NOT arguing for an American ethnic ghetto. I'm simply saying that the Liturgy ought to be in the de facto language(s) of the people. There isn't anything wrong with a few "Lord Have Mercies" in another language. Also I am not saying that any specific chant ought to be the norm. It should be a choice left up to the parishes.

Now, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to argue anymore. We could debate this to the end of time, and neither of us agreeing. Its pointless to continue arguing. I just want to conclude by saying, I'm not for ethnic churches, it doesn't matter if they are American or any other nationality.


Oh also, there is a wonderful Orthodox CD out there. I forgot the name of it, but it has a litany where the choir says the many Lord have mercies in not just english, but in probably half a dozen or more languages. It's absolutely wonderful. It'd be really cool if we could do it, but it would be really difficult.

[ialmisry]

What parishes would that be?

The Antiochian parishes commemorate Bishop Joseph in LA. The Romanians commemorate Archbishop Nicolae. In fact, even talking about Canadian bishops, it's pretty bad. The OCA churches in my city are over 1700 miles from their episcopal seat. The Greeks are over 2000 miles from theirs. The Serbs are about 1600 miles as well.

Of course, the Antiochians, Romanians, Greeks and Serbs should be commorating Met. Jonah. But that's the argument now, isn't it?  Take Archbishop Nicolae: Sunday of Orthodoxy in Chicago was at the Serbian Cathedral, not two miles away, straight down the road (quite literally), 5 minutes by car from the Patriarchal Cathedral.  I counted 9 bishops there, and at least one, Archb. Job of blessed memory, was missing (for obvious reasons).  If we had unified synod in North America/America/Canada-America-Mexico, we wouldn't have such a synod in Chicago, and one or two bishops could be in Western Canada.  In my recommendations over at the American Orthodox Institute, I recommended a Ukrainian bishop be set up there (as the Metropolia should have).

LOL. That was done by Lieutenant Governor of Canada and the territorial legislature in 1908.

Blame them.

Actually, technically it was King Edward VII.

Yes, but I'm not sure he was aware of it, while the LG was.

But no matter, it makes sense when there was no resident bishop in Canada at that time, to be under the jurisdiction of a foreign bishop. But that isn't really the issue. The issue is that, if the Canadian church is currently answering to Constantinople or wherever now, then to be under a bishop in New York or DC, doesn't really advance the status of Canadian church unity. We are no better off, and some would argue, we are actually worse off.

I'm intrigued in how you are "worse off."  I'll hold off comment for now.

So Met. Jonah can count on Met. Constantine's vote, no?

Metropolitan Constantine??

Numbers. And canons.

Is there some canon I am unaware of that states that the Canadian church should be under the jurisdiction of the United States until they reach a certain magical number of congregants??

No. Just that Church isn't autocephalous until the Mother Church issues the Tomos, or at least until the Church has enough bishops to constitute a synod, as envisioned in Apostolic Canon 34 etc.

The Tomos of 1970.  And canons.

Ah yes, the Tomos. Except the MP still has parishes in North America, and there are still ROCOR parishes as well. The Tomos is not a great harbinger for church unity...it took two jurisdictions and made them three.

No, not if you actually read the Tomos. And know the history: Yes, the MP had parishes in North America, and still has some of them now.  A number of them have, according to the terms of the Tomos, joined the OCA.  According to the Tomos, the MP has not released any to any other "jurisdiction" (though I understand some went to ROCOR (elsewhere?) without canonical release. So much for obedience).  The Tomos grandfathers the return of non-canonical groups, such as ROCOR and the Ukrainians. Hence the grey issue of ROCOR as to jurisdiction, for the same pastoral reasons the clause was put in the Tomos and why ROCOR do not have to commemorate Pat. Kyril at present.  The MP parishes in North America commemorate the patriarch AND Met. Jonah.  Speaking of uncanonical, the Metropolia wasn't seen as such at the time, and the Tomos was much like the Act of Canonical Union with ROCOR: it is ironic that as the Greek Churches denounced the Tomos, they still recognized the OCA as canonical, which they had not before. So it took three jurisdictions, and left three jurisdictions, but with the dynamic in place for one jurisdiction to emerge. And the ball started rolling: besides the MP parishes joining up (and a few Greek ones ), the Romanians came on board as well as the Albanians and Bulgarians.  So three jurisdictions down, just a few more to go.

[augustin717]

Ialmisry,
Being such a great defender of the OCA's prerogatives and ideology as you seem to be, why don't you belong to it, choosing instead an Arab church?

[bogdan]

What parishes would that be?

The Antiochian parishes commemorate Bishop Joseph in LA. The Romanians commemorate Archbishop Nicolae. In fact, even talking about Canadian bishops, it's pretty bad. The OCA churches in my city are over 1700 miles from their episcopal seat. The Greeks are over 2000 miles from theirs. The Serbs are about 1600 miles as well.

Of course, the Antiochians, Romanians, Greeks and Serbs should be commorating Met. Jonah. But that's the argument now, isn't it?  Take Archbishop Nicolae: Sunday of Orthodoxy in Chicago was at the Serbian Cathedral, not two miles away, straight down the road (quite literally), 5 minutes by car from the Patriarchal Cathedral.  I counted 9 bishops there, and at least one, Archb. Job of blessed memory, was missing (for obvious reasons).  If we had unified synod in North America/America/Canada-America-Mexico, we wouldn't have such a synod in Chicago, and one or two bishops could be in Western Canada.  In my recommendations over at the American Orthodox Institute, I recommended a Ukrainian bishop be set up there (as the Metropolia should have).

This is the thing about for me. It's administrative anarchy. If I recall correctly there are 16 bishops that claim jurisdiction over the piece of dirt I'm sitting on right now. How does that make any sense?

Small dioceses is the ideal. The bishop can't be very involved with his flock if his territory is 1000 miles wide. But if that shrunk down to a state-sized area (depending on population), the bishop could better address the needs of his people.

Each parish should keep its cultural character, and I think ialmisry's idea of having a bishop of reference for liturgical matters is a good one. But administratively, every parish in a given area should commemorate the same bishop. To do otherwise is illogical.

[ialmisry]

Ialmisry,
Being such a great defender of the OCA's prerogatives and ideology as you seem to be, why don't you belong to it, choosing instead an Arab church?

Personal circumstances.  Since you're relatively new, I'll repeat myself: the parish priest of my then wife and our sons asked me, in view of the impending divorce, to transfer from the OCA Cathedral to his parish so that he has "a free hand to deal with it."  So when she ran off, the priest told her never to come back amongst other things (she was expecting his blessing).

[John of the North]

By this I'm meaning things like publishing houses, seminaries, and the like.

But we have those things in Canada already.

Although these things are valued by Orthodox around the world, certainly Canadian Orthodox rely and take advantage of what is available in the US more than people more geographically distant.

Absolutely.

Of course, the Antiochians, Romanians, Greeks and Serbs should be commorating Met. Jonah.

Should they now??

I'm intrigued in how you are "worse off."  I'll hold off comment for now.

"It has always bothered me to say I am in the Orthodox Church in America. Canadians are not Americans. The ultimate slap in the face was when we were at the last AAC and I went to the mission booth.  The map only had the US missions.  Canada and Mexico were not on the map. The reply was that they couldn’t find a map of Canada. I hope that the issues of central office will be resolved.  I hope we put our efforts into building the Orthodox church in Canada."

"For our Archdiocese, being second class citizens has to stop. We have to be given autonomy to run ourselves."

"Have you noticed in the US that we are referred to as the National church? It is an international church. There is a lack of understanding between Canada and the US."

"Canadians have a different mindset of how to do things which is different from the US."

http://oca15aac.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/oca-%E2%80%9Ctown-hall%E2%80%9D-meeting-notes-edmonton-ab-july-3-2008/

I'm not going to trade in an autonomous Canadian church for a church who has to grovel on its knees in front of Syosset. And being "autonomous" under some American hierarch is some how supposed to be better than what we have now?? Somehow I doubt that. I'll pass.

I know who he is. Just wondering how he is relevant to Canada.

No. Just that Church isn't autocephalous until the Mother Church issues the Tomos, or at least until the Church has enough bishops to constitute a synod, as envisioned in Apostolic Canon 34 etc.

We have more than enough Canadian bishops to constitute a synod.

[Iconodule]

Canadians are not Americans

According to some, anyone living in the Americas is an American. That's why a lot of Latin Americans resent the appropriation of the word "American" to mean "US citizen." I for one would never refer to the United States by itself as "America."

[ialmisry]

Of course, the Antiochians, Romanians, Greeks and Serbs should be commorating Met. Jonah.

Should they now??

Yes. Immediately.

I'm intrigued in how you are "worse off."  I'll hold off comment for now.

"It has always bothered me to say I am in the Orthodox Church in America. Canadians are not Americans.

Yes, another suggestion I made was renaming the OCA the OCNA, putting North in there, at least for the time being.

Since when is the UOCC part of the OCA?

The ultimate slap in the face was when we were at the last AAC and I went to the mission booth.  The map only had the US missions.  Canada and Mexico were not on the map. The reply was that they couldn’t find a map of Canada. I hope that the issues of central office will be resolved.  I hope we put our efforts into building the Orthodox church in Canada."

"For our Archdiocese, being second class citizens has to stop. We have to be given autonomy to run ourselves."

"Have you noticed in the US that we are referred to as the National church? It is an international church. There is a lack of understanding between Canada and the US."

"Canadians have a different mindset of how to do things which is different from the US."

http://oca15aac.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/oca-%E2%80%9Ctown-hall%E2%80%9D-meeting-notes-edmonton-ab-july-3-2008/

I'm not going to trade in an autonomous Canadian church for a church who has to grovel on its knees in front of Syosset. And being "autonomous" under some American hierarch is some how supposed to be better than what we have now?? Somehow I doubt that. I'll pass.

I know who he is. Just wondering how he is relevant to Canada.

Well, you autonomous Church was just delievered up to the American hierarchs of SCOBA by the Phanar.  Chambesy could have seperated Canada from the US, as the Phanar had done to deal with autonomy here. Not only did it not, but it added Central America, so now, the whole of the Orthodox from the Arctic to Panama except for the OCA is one happen family come Pentecost.
http://orthodoxhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/2009Diasporadecision_EN_OFFICIAL-1.pdf

Chambesy explicitely takes SCOBA as its model  (), and all I have seen about implimentation SCOBA meeting to reorganize itself into the Episcopal Assembly.

Now, the OCA is the only one with a free hand: the Phanar has tied your hands: check your charter. Since the primates of all the other jurisdictions on the OCA's jurisdiction have signed on, all your fellow Canadians, except those under Met. Jonah's omophorion are bound too.

So far, Met. Jonah has gone along.  SCOBA has to amend its constitution to follow up on the decision of Chambesy: Met. Constantine, unlike your bishops in Canada, has a vote on that (hence the question about your small presence hindering Autocephaly).  Once the American primates decide on what they are going to do, the Canadian bishops (and Mexican and Central America) including their primates will be given a fait accompoli and appended. Or have you been busy up North and news has not reached us?

Myself, I stated in my recommendations that the Autocephaly of North American should be transitional, in the sense of the 1970 Tomos, of envisioning an autocephalous Canadian and Mexican Churches alongside the US one.  I don't favor the Russian transnational Church for North America, unless NAFTA becomes the North American Union, and even then....

No. Just that Church isn't autocephalous until the Mother Church issues the Tomos, or at least until the Church has enough bishops to constitute a synod, as envisioned in Apostolic Canon 34 etc.

We have more than enough Canadian bishops to constitute a synod.

How many do you have?

[genesisone]

By this I'm meaning things like publishing houses, seminaries, and the like.

But we have those things in Canada already.

Although these things are valued by Orthodox around the world, certainly Canadian Orthodox rely and take advantage of what is available in the US more than people more geographically distant.

Absolutely.

Of course, the Antiochians, Romanians, Greeks and Serbs should be commorating Met. Jonah.

Should they now??

I'm intrigued in how you are "worse off."  I'll hold off comment for now.

"It has always bothered me to say I am in the Orthodox Church in America. Canadians are not Americans. The ultimate slap in the face was when we were at the last AAC and I went to the mission booth.  The map only had the US missions.  Canada and Mexico were not on the map. The reply was that they couldn’t find a map of Canada. I hope that the issues of central office will be resolved.  I hope we put our efforts into building the Orthodox church in Canada."

"For our Archdiocese, being second class citizens has to stop. We have to be given autonomy to run ourselves."

"Have you noticed in the US that we are referred to as the National church? It is an international church. There is a lack of understanding between Canada and the US."

"Canadians have a different mindset of how to do things which is different from the US."

http://oca15aac.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/oca-%E2%80%9Ctown-hall%E2%80%9D-meeting-notes-edmonton-ab-july-3-2008/

I'm not going to trade in an autonomous Canadian church for a church who has to grovel on its knees in front of Syosset. And being "autonomous" under some American hierarch is some how supposed to be better than what we have now?? Somehow I doubt that. I'll pass.

No. Just that Church isn't autocephalous until the Mother Church issues the Tomos, or at least until the Church has enough bishops to constitute a synod, as envisioned in Apostolic Canon 34 etc.

We have more than enough Canadian bishops to constitute a synod.

Yes, there are Canadian seminaries and publishing houses, but are they sufficient to meet the needs of an independent church without some reliance in these areas on US institutions? I will need some very convincing statistics to accept an affirmative answer to that question.

And yes, I also agree with you about the fact that we feel that Canada is a bit of an afterthought for Americans (or should we call them USAians or some other such foolish term?). But at least you and I know better, don't we?

Ukiemeister, I really admire your zeal to see a Canadian Church. I would love to see it, too. I guess I've just moved a little further along the patience road than you have on some matters. Small steps will get us there soon enough.