OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 17, 2014, 03:37:20 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Odd "Canonical" History behind the GOANSA Charter of 1922  (Read 24677 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,590



« on: August 23, 2009, 04:33:35 PM »

I came across a couple things which, yes, came as no suprise. Still, interesting.

For starters, there is an interesting synopsis of a book that claims, evidently, that Met./Arb./EP/Pope Meletios was planning to create a autocephalous Church in America:
The History of the Greek Church in America
in Acts and Documents by Paul G. Manolis
http://www.helleniccomserve.com/bookhistgrkchurchamerica.html

Quote
The main thread of the work is that the Church of America was not able to determine its own destiny, but became a pawn of external forces and interests, such as the Greek Government, the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece and was a victim of political events and controversies in Greece. Many of us were unaware that for a short time the Church of America was a diocesan see of the Church of Greece. In the final analysis the American church was not left free to choose its own leaders or to determine its own governing structure. Neither the clergy nor laity of the American Church was able to play a role or have a voice in the important decisions, which determined their future.

Since the American Church wasn't invited to Chambesy, nothing has changed.

Quote
Included are the minutes of a meeting held at the Greek Foreign Ministry with representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece, which decided on the course of action to be taken to solve the problems of the then turbulent Church of America. This included the dispatching of an Exarch who would carry out the predetermined plan. When the Archbishop (Alexander) refused to resign and acquiesce to the plan he was defrocked by the Ecumenical Patriarch. Following his repentance, Alexander was elected Metropolitan of Corfu to replace Athenagoras who in 1931 was elected at Archbishop of America

Again, how interesting that a deposed primate and a defrocked Metropolitan supposedly lay the canonical foundation of, according to the EP's Chief Secretary, the only fully canonical jurisdiction not only in North America, but South America as well.

Quote
The Greek Orthodox Church of America however was established on May 17, 1922 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate as a self-governing autonomous church, headed by an Archbishop and three bishops who comprised the Holy Synod, which was the governing body of the church of America. This autonomy was abolished in 1930 by means of a fabricated document, which the Archbishop and the bishops of the Holy Synod were coerced into signing. Manolis fully documents this action. Students of church history will also find it interesting to note that when the Archdiocese was established by Patriarchal Tome (the term use to describe an official action of the Patriarchate) is was called the “Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America” (without mention of the word Greek in the original title). The omission was not an oversight but rather indicative of the plan of Patriarch Meletios to establish an entity in America which would include all ethnic Orthodox jurisdictions.

This Holy Synod was New York, with San Francisco, Chicago and Boston. I leave aside New York (a special case, as the scene of episcopal consecrations before a Greek bishop arrived), San Francisco (THE flagrant and wanton disregard of the canons in the 1922 charter), and Chicago (where the pan-Orthodox parish that almost was went on to become three seperate bishopricks), and focus on Boston:

Quote
Prior to 1890, there was little effort to organize the pioneering Greek immigrants living in the Boston area. In 1890, approximately one hundred Boston Hellenes formed the Plato Society to help themselves with the many problems of living in their new setting and to provide religious services. The Society engaged a Syrian Orthodox priest who spoke Greek to celebrate the Divine Liturgy at a rented hall.

The Syrian Orthodox priest was at hand because the Syrians had becoming a decade earlier, and had already formed a parish by 1900.  As its website states:
Quote
Our parish was founded in Boston's South End in 1900 by newly arrived immigrants from the Middle East.  The new community placed themselves under the patronage of St. George the Great Martyr.  Desiring to maintain their Orthodox Christian faith and heritage they established themselves as a parish of the Syrian Orthodox Mission of the Russian Orthodox Church
http://www.stgeorgeofboston.org/about/history.html

Of course, that Church doesn't count. Roll Eyes

Nonetheless, it had its reaction:
Quote
In 1899, with an increase in immigrants and finances, efforts were resumed to bring the Greeks in Boston together....Outstanding among them was Michael Anagnostopoulos who acquired the services of Rev. K. Papageorgiou, a priest that had stopped briefly in Boston. A hall was rented on Kneeland Street and Fr. Papageorgiou became the first Greek priest to hold regular church services in Boston. After.two years he departed from Boston and was replaced by Rev. Constantinos Papakonstantinou who continued holding services until leaving for Greece. Rev. Panagiotis Phiambolis, another priest from Greece, then assumed priestly responsibilities and conducted services in a rented hall on the corner of Stuart and Tyler Streets. Church services in Boston continued without an official Parish organization until the Fall of 1903. At this time, only five other Greek Orthodox churches existed in the United States -Holy Trinity in New Orleans (1867), Holy Trinity in New York (1892), Holy Trinity in Chicago (1892), Evangelismos in New York (1893), and Holy Trinity in Lowell, MA (1900)

Around the time that the Russian Diocese had almost as many bishops as the Greeks had parishes, a point I'll be returning to.

At the time, Holy Trinity Cathedral served as the See for North America, having been founded by the Greek counsul along with the Russian, and serving the Greek and others in San Francisco since 1864 (hence the flangrant violation of canon 6 of Ephesus by the 1922 Charter).

Quote
Under the leadership of Michael Anagnostopoulos, a committee of nine was formed to collect funds for a Church and to draft by-laws for its functioning. Their meetings and perseverance resulted in a Massachusetts Charter granted on August 25, 1905. The Church was incorporated under the name Hellenic Association of Boston - the corporate name of the Greek Orthodox Cathedral of New England

Cathedral?  Since when do laymen get secular non-Orthodox charters to create Cathedrals for non-existent bishops in non-existant dioceses?

Quote
The purpose of the Greek Community, as stated in the Charters' By-Laws, was to establish a Greek church, a school for teaching Greek and a reading room...In 1906, Fr. Phiampolis resigned due to poor health and was replaced by Rev. Nestor Souslides a priest appointed by the Patriarch. During this period, Anagnostopoulos founded the National Union to bring all Greek immigrants under one organization and to keep alive a sense of duty to the homeland.


What Patriarch and homeland was that?

Note:The Russian Church had replaced the commemoration of the Czar with that of the US President by that time.

The "homeland" brought its problems here:
Quote
In the middle of this and various fund raising activities" a serious split occurred in the Church community over political and nationalistic ties to Greece between Liberals (Venizelists) and Loyalists (King Constantine). This led to the formation of a rival church. The split continued until 1915 when the two churches united under Rev. Constantine Douropoulos.

Jurisdictional disunity returned, if it ever left.

[/quote]WorId War I, political factionalism following the Greek disaster in Turkey, financial problems and lack of ecclesiastical authority and supervision resulted in a delay of building plans for several years. Rev. Joakim Malahias replaced Fr. Douropoulos as Cathedral Dean in 1920. Shortly thereafter, he was succeeded by Rev. Joakim Alexopoulos who revitalized the idea of building a new church...The Cathedral was finally built during the years 1923-4 by the J. R. Worcester Company. It was to symbolize the diligence, sacrifice and achievement of pioneering Greek immigrants wishing to sustain the bond between their faith in America and the Mother Church in Constantinople...The twenties were years the Boston Community was absorbed in their own immediate problems and participating effectively as responsible citizens. The notion of returning to the homeland became remote, and the political questions of their distant homeland were left to be decided by its own citizens. On June 28, 1923, Joakim Alexopoulos was appointed the first Bishop of Boston and the new Church, his seat, became a Cathedral. In this capacity, the Cathedral served as the Mother Church of New England and helped establish and support new parishes in the region that had become a magnet for Greek immigration....In June 1930, the Cathedral took initial steps to encourage the centralization of a Greek[/quote]

Emphasis added, as the record shows that there was no unity among the Greeks, let alone caring about the Orthodox.

Quote
Orthodox Archdiocese in New York City as a unifying element for all Greek Orthodox parishes in the United States."We, your Bostonian parishioners respectfully request his Eminence, Archbishop Damasinos of New York, to appoint clergy and national committees to form one constitution for all Greek churches in America." (Parish Council notes) The following year, Archbishop  Athenegoras became the second Archbishop of the Church in America.

That is, after the defrocked Archb. Alexander.

Quote
His ideas were as progressive as the Bostonians and he is credited with establishing a sound cultural authority in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America. Athenegoras frequently visited the Cathedral and it was in New England that he established the Holy Cross School of Theology in Pomfret, CN. This was the predecessor of the Hellenic College/Holy Cross School of Theology in Brookline, MA. Athenegoras saw support and intellectual leadership in the Boston Community which may have been the reason why the Boston Cathedral became a stepping stone to higher ecclesiastical leadership in the Greek Orthodox Church for many deans, bishops and archbishops.

Which promoted the "Cathedral"'s goals:
Quote
The Annunciation Greek Orthodox Cathedral of New England will celebrate its 100th Anniversary during the year 2003. Being one of the oldest parishes in the United States and one of the first to be declared a Cathedral of the Greek Orthodox Church in the western hemisphere, it is officially designated a Boston landmark and listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

As the Seat of the Diocese of Boston, the Cathedral is recognized as The Mother Church for the faithful of New England, and through its history has provided spiritual inspiration and guidance for many Greek Orthodox communities in New England and throughout America.

From the beginning, the Cathedral demonstrated concern for the unity of the Greek Orthodox Church in America. It gave support to the Ecumenical Patriarch by promoting its canonical jurisdiction over the Church in America. It undertook initiatives for the unification of the Greek Orthodox Church under a central administrative authority. Once the Greek Archdiocese of North and South America was established, it gave wholehearted support to its institutions and programs.

How does such goals not violate canon 8 of Ephesus?
Quote
Canon VIII.

Our brother bishop Rheginus, the beloved of God, and his fellow beloved of God bishops, Zeno and Evagrius, of the Province of Cyprus, have reported to us an innovation which has been introduced contrary to the ecclesiastical constitutions and the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and which touches the liberties of all.  Wherefore, since injuries affecting all require the more attention, as they cause the greater damage, and particularly when they are transgressions of an ancient custom; and since those excellent men, who have petitioned the Synod, have told us in writing and by word of mouth 235that the Bishop of Antioch has in this way held ordinations in Cyprus; therefore the Rulers of the holy churches in Cyprus shall enjoy, without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of the blessed Fathers and ancient custom, the right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops.  The same rule shall be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none of the God beloved Bishops shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors.  But if any one has violently taken and subjected [a Province], he shall give it up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood.

Wherefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod has decreed that in every province the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to it, shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured:  every Metropolitan having permission to take, for his own security, a copy of these acts.  And if any one shall bring forward a rule contrary to what is here determined, this holy and ecumenical Synod unanimously decrees that it shall be of no effect.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.xii.html
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2009, 08:48:03 PM »

It has been my experience that whenever anyone points out how the jurisdictional situation in the US is a violation of the Church canons, they conveniently blame it on the Russian Revolution, and cease any further discussion. As you have so eloquently pointed out, many of the jurisdictional issues have very little to do with the Russian Revolution at all.
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,590



« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2009, 07:45:58 AM »

It has been my experience that whenever anyone points out how the jurisdictional situation in the US is a violation of the Church canons, they conveniently blame it on the Russian Revolution, and cease any further discussion. As you have so eloquently pointed out, many of the jurisdictional issues have very little to do with the Russian Revolution at all.

Including he suppression of the Ukrainians from forming a diocese, like the Arabs, Albanians (the autocephalous Church's mother Church really is in Boston), and was planned for the Serbs and Greeks (Fr. Andreas, a Constantinoplitan Greek attachted to the Russian Cathedral in SF had gone on a mission to the Phanar to get a Greek bishop), one of Archb. Alexander's disgraceful acts.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2009, 08:15:23 AM »

So...cut to the chase and suspend your incessant jihad, Isa. Why are you Antiochian?
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,590



« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2009, 08:35:04 AM »

So...cut to the chase and suspend your incessant jihad, Isa.

Matthew 15:13.

Just laying astroturf. Roll Eyes


Quote
Why are you Antiochian?

I think that's been stated before, but I don't have the time to look for it: my ex's father confessor asked me to formally transfer so he could tell her never to come back.

From what I've been hearing and seeing, especially at Rives Junction, the split between the OCA and the Antiochians won't see its centennial.  My oldest son was baptized by the Antiochian dean in the OCA Cathedral.

Alexandria has been bought off by the EP, so no jurisdiction here as an option, if I was so inclined.  We still prayer daily for the Pope.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,347


metron ariston


« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2009, 09:20:50 AM »

So...cut to the chase and suspend your incessant jihad, Isa.

Ha! That might actually contribute to Orthodox unity, which obviously isn't the goal at hand.

Maybe someone should post snippets from an overview of the KGB's involvement in the "canonical" deal-making that changed the status of the Metropolia from a church in schism to one with autocephaly in half a day.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,590



« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2009, 11:02:55 AM »

So...cut to the chase and suspend your incessant jihad, Isa.

Ha! That might actually contribute to Orthodox unity, which obviously isn't the goal at hand.

Rome's Ultramontanism creates no unity (just forced union) whether it be Old, New or for that matter the Third.

Nach Phanar gehen wir nicht.


Quote
Maybe someone should post snippets from an overview of the KGB's involvement in the "canonical" deal-making that changed the status of the Metropolia from a church in schism to one with autocephaly in half a day.

You mean, like what happened to the Church of Greece in 1850?

Why you are doing your study, do include how the Soviet authorities insisted that the Metropolia swear loyalty to the Soviet state, which is what caused the schism and perpetuated it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,347


metron ariston


« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2009, 11:44:53 AM »

Nach Phanar gehen wir nicht.

Above is a perfect example why no one bothers to correct the errors of fact and interpretation in your rants. Better to leave you to the tin hats.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,590



« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2009, 12:51:34 PM »

Nach Phanar gehen wir nicht.

Above is a perfect example why no one bothers to correct the errors of fact and interpretation in your rants. Better to leave you to the tin hats.

As opposed to the tin crowns they wear in the Phanar?
I might as well be up front: since the Phanar, including but not limited to Arbp/EP Meletios, has injected itself as a party into the dispute in the Church in the United States, not only is the EP NOT in a position to guide the Autocephalous Churches (or anyone) toward a proper resolution, but the EP has in fact DISQUALIFIED himself from doing so. Not diminishing the significance of canon 28 and related canons?  No, he is attempting to magnify his interpretation of canon 28 and twisting all the canons to support it.

We've had canon 28 pasted before, but I do not know if we have had the interpretation of St. Nicodemos the Athonite:

Quote
Since at this Fourth Council c. III of the Second Council was read, which decrees that the Bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy priorities of honor with the Bishop of Rome, seeing that it is New Rome, therefore the fathers of this Council too, by means of their present Canon, renew and confirm the said Canon, and they decree and vote the same things as regards the priorities of the same city of Constantinople which is also known as New Rome. For, they say, just as the Fathers bestowed privileges upon the throne of Old Rome on account of the fact that it was the capital of an empire, and were fully justified in doing so, owing, that is to say, to his being first in point of order among the rest of the Patriarchs. In exactly the same way and motivated by exactly the same object and aim, the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved bishops of the second Council have bestowed exactly the same and equal privileges of honor also upon the most holy throne of New Rome[112] — of Constantinople, that is to say — deeming it quite reasonable that this city, in view of the fact that it has been honored by being made the seat of an empire and of a senate, in a similar manner as has also (old) Rome, ought to enjoy the same and equal privileges in a similar manner as has also (old) Rome, and to be magnified herself also in exactly the same way as the latter is in connection with ecclesiastical matters, with the sole difference that old Rome is to be first in order, while new Rome is to be second in order. In addition to these things we decree and vote that only the Metropolitans (but not also the Bishops, that is to say, that are subject to the Metropolitans; for each of these is ordained by his own Metropolitan together with the bishops of the province, just as the divine Canons prescribe, especially c. VI of the First) shall be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of Constantinople. Not only are the Metropolitans of the said dioceses to be ordained by him, but indeed also the bishops located in barbarian regions that border on the said dioceses, as, for instance, those called Alani are adjacent to and flank the diocese of Pontus, while the Russians border on that of Thrace. Nevertheless, the said Metropolitans are not to be ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople just as he pleases and decides, but he must take the votes of the Synod under him into consideration as reported to him in accordance with established custom, and then ordain those men on whom the voters have agreed, either unanimously or as a majority.[113]
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/_P1W.HTM

and the commentary of the Pedalion's translator:

Quote
The principal reason for issuing the present Canon were five, of which three were remote, while two were necessary and proximates: 1) Since c. XXXIV of the Apostles commands that the bishops of each nation ought to have one of their number as chief, and to regard him as their head, and since cc. VI and VII of the First made some dioceses subject to the Bishop of Rome, and others subject to the Bishop of Alexandria, and others to the Bishop of Antioch, and others to the Bishop of Jerusalem, the dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and of Thrace, being autocephalous, ought by the same token to have the Bishop of Constantinople as their chief and head, and ought to come under his jurisdiction, and ought to be ordained by him, because he was their neighbor, and especially because such a custom had ensued from the beginning. For the Patriarch of Constantinople had ordained many Metropolitans from among them. For St. Chrysostorn ordained Heracleides Bishop of Ephesus, and by going to Ephesus and returning to Constantinople he deposed thirteen bishops from office. The Bishop of Ancyra, too, and Memnon, Bishop of Ephesus (who acted as the primate of the Third Ecum. Council) were ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople. So that it appears that what we said above is true as the solution of the puzzling question in the Footnote to the ninth Canon. Accordingly, then, it appears that it subordinates the Metropolitans of these dioceses to the judgment of the Patriarch of Constantinople. 2) Since the Second Ec. C. also in its c. Ill accorded priorities of honor to the Bishop of Constantinople, it was in keeping therewith to bestow upon him also priorities of authority. 3) The fact that the Bishop of Constantinople ought to receive privileges of authority because various Patriarchs and Prelates used to come to the Emperor to beg for his help in their exigencies, and it was necessary for them first to meet the Bishop of Constantinople, in whom they found a man to co-operate with them and to lend them assistance, and through him they were enabled to approach the Emperor, just as, in confirmation of the ancient custom, Justinian prescribed this. This is why, in Act 16 of the Fourth Council, the Bishop of Laodicea, Nounechius, said, when the legates of the Bishop of Rome were displeased by the priorities granted to the Bishop of Constantinople: “The glory of Constantinople is our glory, because it undertakes our cares.” 4) The Bishop of Constantinople ought to have received the privileges of authority over the above-mentioned three dioceses because, as appears from Act 13 of the Fourth Ec. C., many scandals arose in Ephesus on account of the illegal ordinations of Stephanus and Basianus, as well as in Asia and Pontus and Thrace similar scandals ensued, where, upon the death of bishops, many disturbances followed in the wake of the votes and on the heels of the ordinations, owing to the fact that they were without a governing head, according to the letter of the same Fourth Council addressed to Leo. And between Eunomius the Bishop of Nicomedia, and Anastasius the Bishop of Nicaea, a great many noisy brawls occurred in regard to the bishopric of Basilinoupolis. 5) And finally, because ungodly Dioscorus at the Latrocinium, or Robber Synod, held in Ephesus, placed the Bishop of Constantinople Flavian, not first, but fifth in order, contrary to the Canons, which even Leo the Great, who was the Pope of Rome, and his legates resented, in this Fourth Council, wherefore they reproached Dioscorus.

                For all these reasons, then, the Council, renewing c. III of the 2nd by means of the present Canon, conferred upon the Bishop of Constantinople the same and equal privileges of honor that had previously been bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome, namely, the Patriarchal dignity and office, and also the same and equal privileges of authority that had previously been bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome, namely, the right of ordination in the three said dioceses of the Metropolitans, not only as a matter of custom, but also as one established by means of a Canon, on the ground that they are included in the territorial jurisdiction of Constantinople. For precisely as the Bishop of Rome has the priorities of honor and of authority, which amounts to saying the Patriarchal dignity and office, comprising the right of ruling his own parish in the West, so and in like manner the Bishop of Constantinople has the same priorities — that is to say, the Patriarchal dignity and office and the right to rule the above-mentioned Metropolitans who are comprised in his own parish. Accordingly, these are the ecclesiastical affairs mentioned here in the Canon, wherein the Bishop of Constantinople is magnified just as is the Bishop of Rome, without any difference save this, that the Bishop of Rome is first in point of order, while the Bishop of Constantinople is second in point of order. These privileges of the Bishop of Constantinople were confirmed and ratified not only by the Fathers of this Council, but also by the entire Senate of civil rulers, notwithstanding that the legates of the Pope, though they had previously reproached Dioscorus, yet perceiving that the bounds of Constantinople were being widened, nearly fainted in their desperate attempt to oppose them. Hence the Pope-worshipers are manifestly lying when they say that the primacy and priority of Rome, and its right to be magnified in ecclesiastical affairs, lend the Pope a special privilege of authority in the Church as a whole, which amounts to saying, in other words, a monarchal and inerrable dignity. For if these facts indicated any such thing, the Bishop of Constantinople too would have to possess the same dignity, since the Bishop of Constantinople, according to the Canons, is a measure and standard of exactly the same and equal value respecting honor of authority and respecting grandeur as is the Bishop of Rome. But, as a matter of fact, that was never bestowed upon the Bishop of Constantinople by the Canons, nor, it may hence be inferred, upon the Bishop of Rome. But neither are the priorities of Rome those which were conferred by the legendary edict of Constantine the Great upon Silvester, the Pope of Rome, as they allege — which is to say, more plainly speaking, the privilege of walking about with the decorations of imperial majesty in imitation of an emperor; the right to wear upon his head a brilliant riband in place of a wreath or garland; the right to wear an imperial pallium (or omophorion) and a purple robe and a scarlet tunic; the right to have his horse caparisoned in imperial style, with all the imperial insignia and emblems, and to hold the bridle of his horse like a strator, after the manner of an emperor; and the privilege of conceding to the clergy of his Church, as well as to the Senate thereof, the right to magnify themselves and to put on airs of grandeur both in the matter of wearing apparel and in the matter of footwear as well as in the matter of cavaliership. These external manifestations of splendor and luster, I say, are not the priorities and dignities conferred upon the Bishop of Rome by the Canons. By no means. Firstly, because if they were, they would have had to be conferred similarly and equally upon the Bishop of Constantinople also; and secondly, because, according to c. XVI of the 7th Ec. C. and c. XXVII of the 6th, splendid and lustrous clothes, and every other stultification and adornment of the human body are alien to and inconsistent with clergymen and the priestly order, and because the smokelike puffiness (or pretentiousness) of mundane authority must be taboo to priests of God, according to the letter of the Council of Carthage to Pope Celestinus. Ap. c. LXXXIII, too, deposes those who wish to exercise both Roman imperiousness and sacerdotal government. The Lord, too, in the Gospels, commands us to beware of those who wish to walk about in costumes. On this account, again, the vain and legendary edict is judged to be spurious and fictitious. But even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that it is true, yet, in view of the fact that it is obviously opposed to the sacred Canons, it is invalid and void and no longer in force. For when at any time or place current forms conflict with the Canons, they are invalid and void, as we stated in the beginning of this Manual. The priority and primacy of Rome’s Bishop, therefore, consists, as we have said, in his having authority over all the bishops and metropolitans included in the see, or diocese, of Rome, so that he, together with the other bishops of the see, has the right to ordain them, and in his being entitled to come first in order among the Patriarchs, the other Patriarchs coming second, third, etc. He received these privileges, not because Rome was the seat of St. Peter, not because the Bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ, as the Roman Catholics vainly insist — by no means, but primarily because Rome was honored as the capital of an empire. For, says the present Canon, “the Fathers naturally enough granted the priorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being the imperial capital”; consequently, because of the ancient custom which it followed, exactly as Rome was a capital city, it becomes proper to concede the first place to her Bishop and to regard him as the first, or most notable, bishop — or, as we say in English, the primate — and, by further consequence of this fact, because just in the same way that the same privilege was bestowed upon the Bishop of Constantinople too owing to Constantinople’s being (at that time) an imperial capital, and New Rome, the Canons conferred such a privilege upon the Bishop of Rome for the same identical reason. Thus, too, because it was an imperial capital, it became an ancient custom for the Bishop of Constantinople to ordain the bishops in Asia, Pontus, and Thrace; and because it became a custom, the Canons were adopted and the ancient custom was ratified. Note that in addition to the equal privileges with the Bishop of Rome which the Bishop of Constantinople received, he further received also these two titles, namely, the appellation of “All-holiest” and of “Ecumenical,” by way of differentiation from the other Patriarchs. The appellation of “All-holiest” was first accorded to the Bishops of Constantinople Sergius and Peter by Macarius of Antioch at the Sixth Ec. C. in the seventh century A.C.; while that of “Ecumenical” was bestowed by the clergymen of Antioch and the Orthodox Christians in Byzantium upon the Bishop of Constantinople named John the Cappadocian in the reign of Justin the Thracian during the sixth century. I said that the Bishop of Constantinople was given the appellation by way of differentiation, because, although the Bishop of Rome was given by many the appellation of “All-holiest,” and so were the Bishops of Alexandria, of Antioch, and of Jerusalem, and, in fact, all Patriarchs in common were called “All-Holiest” by various persons and at various times, yet, in spite of this, usage won out ultimately in the custom of according this appellation exceptionally and exclusively to the Bishop of Constantinople. Likewise the appellation of “Ecumenical” was also used by some in reference to tne Bishop of Rome, though very seldom; whereas from the time that the Bishop of Constantinople began being called Ecumenical Patriarch he never ceased being called such. Hence in times subsequent to the Cappadocian the Bishops of Constantinople Epiphanius, and Anthimus, and Menas, and Eutychius were called Ecumenical Patriarchs by Justinian in his Novels and Edicts, insomuch that at the Seventh Ecum. Council Peter the legate of the Pope called Tarasius the Ecumenical Patriarch. That is why divine John the Faster in the reign of Muricius, following the practice of continuing the use of such a title which had been initiated by others in deference to the Bishop of Constantinople, became the first to subscribe himself as Ecumenical. As for the title of “All-holiest,” this denotes (speaking of the corresponding Greek word “Panagiotatos”) “in all respects most holy”: in the same vein, that is to say, as Tarasius and Photius wrote to Popes Adrian and Nicholas “To in all respects most holy brother and fellow minister Adrian (or Nicholas), the Pope of Rome.” The title of Ecumenical,” on the other hand, denotes two different things: for it is either taken in general as applying to the Church as a whole, by way of describing a bishop as being entitled to exercise personal and monarchal authority in the Church as a whole; or else it denotes a major part of the inhabited earth — that is to say, more exactly speaking, that a bishop’s authority extends over a major part of the inhabited portion of the earth’s surface. This is in conformity with the fact that many emperors, notwithstanding that they are not lords of the whole inhabited earth (called in Greek the “Oikoumene,” or, according to another method of transliteration “Ecumene”), are nevertheless called (in Greek) lords of the inhabited earth, as Evagrius called Zeno (or Zenon), in allusion, that is to say, to the fact that they exercise authority over a major part of the inhabited surface of the earth. In the first sense of the word, therefore, the Bishop of Constantinople is never called an Ecumenical Patriarch, nor is the Bishop of Rome, or anyone else, excepting only Christ, who is indeed truly a Patriarch of the whole inhabited world and to whom was given all authority in heaven and on earth. But he is called Ecumenical in the second sense of the word on account of the fact that he has under him a major part of the inhabited earth, and furthermore on account of the zeal and providence which he exercises in watching over the faith and preserving the traditions and teachings of both the Councils (including Synods) and the Fathers, not only in his own See (or Diocese), but also in all the rest of the Sees (or Dioceses) throughout the length and breadth of the various lands of the earth. It was hence a result of the double entendre involved in the word Ecumenical that scandals arose between the Father, who was Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Popes of Rome named Pelagius, and Gregory Dialogus. For these Popes, taking the word Ecumenical in the first sense, characterized this title as blasphemous, diabolical, and many other opprobrious epithets; and they further declared that whoever wishes to be called and styled “the Ecumenical Patriarch” is a forerunner of the Antichrist (letter of Gregory to Mauricius), and in this respect they were within the truth. The Faster, however, and Mauricius, and the succeeding Patriarchs and Emperors, understanding the title in accordance with the second signification of the word, were unconcerned, and in this respect they too were within the truth. That is why the Council held in St. Sophia states clearly that the one called Ecumenical (Patriarch), on the ground that he has authority over the greater part of the inhabited earth, is not the Antichrist. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that both these titles are designations conferred, not by any Canons of the Councils or of the Fathers of the Church, but given by custom to the Bishop of Constantinople. The contents of this Footnote have been gleaned also from other sources, but more especially from the Dodecabiblus of Dositheus.

Note that this Fourth Council in its Act 15 promulgated these thirty Canons; but I know not how it came about that this Twenty-eighth Canon and the Twenty-ninth and the Thirtieth are not to be found either in the Collection of Canons of John of Antioch, or in the Nomocanon of John of Constantinople surnamed the Scholasticus, or even in the Arabic paraphrase of Joseph the Egyptian. They are included, however, in all the others.
Constantinople has no emperor, no empire, no senate. It's not even the capital of anything anymore. It cannot even produce its own seminarians, priests and bishops.

Was Archb. Spyridon wearing his tin mitre when he told his flock that "the EP knows America better than you," before his timely departure? Was that before or after the EP unilaterally abolished the charter, and replaced it with one more to his liking?

I know that many are chorttling about Moscows signature on Chambesy.  Wait until it's implemented.

The OCA's obituaries were being written last year over the departure of the Romanian constituent diocese, a victory of phyletism and the Phanar vision.  Well, that deal is all but offiically dead.  Good riddance.

Met. Jonah has not been offiically notified nor informed about the "Episcopal Assembly" for North America (or is it the America's).  He strikes me as doing a rather poor job acting as a rubber stamp.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #9 on: August 24, 2009, 03:09:54 PM »

And you actually think I read that^?
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,590



« Reply #10 on: August 24, 2009, 03:44:04 PM »

I came across this again, the GOA's official account of its origins (at least, the account it posts on its offiical web site):
Quote
The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

Establishment
Before the establishment of an Archdiocese in the Western Hemisphere there were numerous communities of Greek Orthodox Christians. The first Greek Orthodox community in the Americas was founded in New Orleans, LA by a small colony of Greek merchants. History also records that on June 26,1768 the first Greek colonists landed at St. Augustine, FL, the oldest city in America. The first permanent community was founded in New York City in 1892, today’s Archdiocesan Cathedral of the Holy Trinity and the See of the Archbishop of America. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America was incorporated in 1921 and officially recognized by the State of New York in 1922.
http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/about

As stated before, the Greek colonists were brought by an Anglican and his Greek wife who had submitted to the Vatican and procured a priest, under the Vatican's bishop of Cuba, who ministered to the colony, the Greek of which had already and continued to intermarry with Corsicans and Minorcans, always loyal to the Vatican.

Some have claimed that a few Orthodox snuck in: can someone post a link or a short excerpt, names? (please, no out of print works).

The Greek colony in San Francisco and their consul (according to a NY Times account in 1873, the "best organized Greek" community in America)  founded the OCA Cathedral parish shortly before the New Orleans Parish.  The first priest of the New Orleans parish ended up in San Francisco, demanding an antimens and vestments from the Russian priest there:
Quote
...About the presbyter Agapius Honcharenko. When I arrived to S.-Francisco, Mister Consul warned me to not allow myself to receive him and not to talk to him. In the evening, ... a man of small stature with a black beard came to my apartment and ordered me to give him vestments and the antimension, and [to cease?] a campaign to establish a newspaper. As I was already warned, I told him that I could not have anything to do with him and asked him to leave me alone. He left my apartment very angrily, and then began to curse all around the city. He is a former monk and married to an Italian woman. The Slavs cannot stand him.
http://www.holy-trinity.org/

Until 1904 the records at the New Orleans (now) Cathedral (a lovely parish btw, full of Southern Hospitality. The new temple is gorgeous, and incorporates elements from the original, something I always like, homage to roots) were in English, and many (i.e. the Arabs and Slavs) of the parish council knew no Greek.  It became part of the GOA in 1921.
http://books.google.com/books?id=0rOzGa-KjygC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=Orthodox+New+Orleans+records+in+English&source=bl&ots=2HeNiqNIDz&sig=h5jUZuF4KCxpsl49t_hehQwrOzo&hl=en&ei=ds-SStfNN96Ptgf-oKDPBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false

The Greek community was established in 1892? Let's see the Greek "Mother Church of America" says:
Quote
The origin of the Greek Orthodox Church in the Americas is to be found in the believing souls of the Greek Orthodox immigrants. Religion and faith are forces that shape what is called the character of man. We may be justly proud of our history in this Nation and of our ongoing contribution to its religious ethos.

In the fall of 1891 there were about 500 male Greeks and perhaps 20 Greek women in New York. The establishment of the Athena Brotherhood intertwined Hellenism and Greek Orthodoxy; from these few sprung forth the first Greek association in this hemisphere, and the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox parish. It elected as its president Solon J. Vlastos, who three years later founded the first Greek American daily newspaper, The Atlantis.

In fits and starts the fledgling religious community began to grow. Chartered by a special act of the New York State Legislature in 1896, it occupied several locations in lower Manhattan. In 1904 a permanent church building, an Episcopal church of Gothic architecture at 153 East 72nd Street , was purchased. The first service was held on April 3, 1904. Later the same year, the dynamic Father Methodios Kourkoules assumed the pastorate and remained its benevolent and resolute spiritual leader until 1940...Archbishop Athenagoras, later Ecumenical Patriarch (1947–72) consecrated the Cathedral on October 22, 1933 and characterized it as "The Cathedral of all of Hellenism in America."
http://www.thecathedral.goarch.org/vsItemDisplay.dsp&objectID=E9AED050-369E-48B6-BC125D72FB79A659&method=display

Emphasis added.

We have talked about "The Cathedral of all of Hellenism in America" before:
Quote
and in the early 1890s, before the Russian Mission returned to New York, Greek parishes were established in New York.

LOL.  Yes, parishes.  Excessively simplistic: The original organization, the Society of Athena (founded with the help IIRC of a Greek Prince who passed through New York on an American Tour) received a priest, Fr. Ferentinos from the CoG.  The Board of Trustees didn't along with the Society, however, so they seperated the parish administration from the Society.  The Society then founded another parish and got a priest from the EP, who was unaware of the goings on in NY.  Fr. Ferentinos ended up in New Orleans.  
http://books.google.com/books?id=Uh4VnseTNZkC&pg=PA131&dq=Galveston+Orthodox&lr=#PPA130,M1

Divisive: before the Russian Mission returned to New York.  That would mean it was there first. (btw, the article's characterization of Fr. Bjerring's mission conflicts with other, DOCUMENTED, sources I've read.  Hence I would like to know what Fr. Herbel is getting his information).  It is fair to assume that the Imperial Russian Consulate also saw to religious services, as it did in SF and other places until a permanent parish was set up, in the interum.  Not terribly important, as a couple years after the founding of the Society of Athena, we find this from the hagiography of St. Raphael Hawaweeny:
Quote
Archimandrite Raphael arrived in New York on November 2, 1895, and was welcomed by a delegation of Arab Christians who were awaiting their leader from Russia. On November 5, his first Sunday in America, he assisted Bishop NICHOLAS in serving the Divine Liturgy at the Russian church in New York city. Less than two weeks after his arrival, Archimandrite Raphael found a suitable place in lower Manhattan to set up a chapel, and furnished it with ecclesiastical items that he had brought with him from Russia. Bishop NICHOLAS blessed the new chapel, which was dedicated to St Nicholas of Myra.
http://antiochianvillage.org/camp/liturgical/patron/straphael.html
So nearly the same time as "Greek parishes were established in New York," we have a Russian Bishop in New York, celebrating  DL at the (re)constituted Russian Church in NY for the arrival of the future Arab bishop (and saint), the first ordained in the New World, who founded a second parish in NYC, not in the divisive spirit that spawned the Greek parishes, but in the unity of the Arabs within the Russian diocese of America.

I here repeat So are we to place a canonical diocese on a par with the situation described below?  BY NO MEANS!:
Quote
and the argument that might claim “there was a diocese on the continent dedicated to evangelizing the whole continent and, therefore, all Orthodox anywhere on the continent were to be subject to that diocese.”

Excessively simplistic:no one really claims a diocese on the continent until the CoG does so in 1918, and then makes Archb. Meletios of Athens, still resident in Athens (i.e. not in America) bishop of said "diocese."  By then, nearly two decades had passed since the Russian Church had organized its diocese into the Archdiocese of the Aleutian Islands and North America, with vicar bishops for Alaska, for the Arabs, etc. with bishops criss-crossing the continent visiting parishes in all corners of it.

Divisive: whereas the Russian Orthodox Church had organized and built the diocese that spaned the continent and all communities, neither CoG nor Constantinople had ANY direct part in building the Church in America, something the Chief Secretary admits and bemoans.  Case in point: when St. Tikhon went to Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral in NYC in 1904, he was basically expelled, and the parish incorporated itself to prevent it being taken over by St. Tikhon, the only hiearch of a hiearchal Church, which the Orthodox Church is (the distinction is important for American law).  Anywhere else, this would be called schismatic: why is it acceptable in America?  In contrast, Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in Chicago (which predated the one in NYC) invited St. Tikhon to come serve in 1901, which he did.

So are we to place a canonical diocese on a par with the situation described below?  BY NO MEANS!

Quote
And now for the position of the priest, the pastor (ephemerios) of the community.  He has no power as far as the written constitution goes.  Thus we find a most anomolous condition in the Greek churches in America.  It works something like the worst side of the vestry system of the Episcopal Church parishes, without the legal rights of the rector, nor the possibility of intervention by the Bishop; or another analogy might apply in some instances,-Congregationalsim run wild in a mission of the Apostolic, Catholic, Eastern Church!  From afar the Metropolitan Archbishop of Athens (note: The Patriarch of Constantinople has ceded to the Holy Synod of Athens the charge of the Greek Orthodox missions in America) rules without the possibility of settling anything, much as the Bishop of London had charge of the Anglican parishes in this country before the Revelotion.  So the Greek priest is hired, and often "fired," by a parish committee composed usually of poorly educated peasants.  And thus come the wranglings and disputes and divisions into two rival church communities of a city; and thus the poor priests, sent out by the Holy Synod in response to the cry for spiritual help, sometimes find themselves as office boys at the mercy of their employers.  Moreoever, there are also some priests who have no right here; these are Macedonians, mostly of little education, who, coming to America, have slipped their bishop's jurisdiction and are ministering without authority wherever they can make the most money, sometimes underbidding and ousting the priests sent by a bishop. Of course, conditions are not everywhere bad in communities, but the system is sadly irresponsible.  The only solution seems to be a resident bishop for America; may his advent be soon!
(the same source has a nice summary (1913) of the Greek Orthodox Churches at that time)
http://books.google.com/books?id=RVV2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA167&dq=Greeks+in+America+Galveston#PPA55,M1

Alas, that bishop, as far as the Greeks were concerned, was Bshp/Archbshp/EP/Pope Meletios.  I'm a little tired now, so I've have to post his report of his trip to America, where it is clear the GOARCH was founded in willful defiance of the canonical diocese.  For those who can't wait, look here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Uh4VnseTNZkC&pg=PA137&dq=Galveston+Orthodox&lr=#

But back to the origins of the Orthodox (as opposed to Greek Orthodox) community of New York. The first parish was established there in 1870 by the authority of the Russian Holy Synod and the direction of St. Met. Philaret (St. Innocent's mentor), that of Fr. Bjerring (who might have been the first US citizen ordained), mentioned above.  It's congregation consisted of the Russian AND GREEK consulates, and some converts.  On its consecration:
Quote
His Grace the Right Reverend Bishop Paul (Popov) of Novoarkhangelsk led the Novoarkhangelsk (Sitka) vicariate of the Diocese of Kamchatka during the troubled years following the sale of Alaska to the United States, from 1867 to 1870. He was faced with the departure of the Russian administrative organization and arrival of the American Protestants as well as the new governing apparatus...It was also during this period that Bp. Paul initiated a move that heralded the coming transfer of the see to San Francisco. For a period of time Bp. Paul had assigned Priest Nikolai Kovrigin to San Francisco to serve the spiritual needs of the Slavic population in the San Francisco area. Fr. Nikolai arrived in late March of 1868. He served his first Divine Liturgy on Pascha in a residence on Mission Street. Fr. Nikolai also noted in his report to Bp. Paul that the Gospel was read in four languages: Greek, Slavonic, English, and Russian. He also reported that the next day he served the Divine Liturgy in Greek for the Greeks in the city. Fr. Nikolai also advised that he also held services in Sacramento...Bp. Paul was assigned ruling bishop of the Diocese of Yeniseysk and Krasnoyarsk on June 10, 1870. He departed Alaska, traveling across the United States on the way to Russia. As he was leaving Alaska he met his successor, Bishop John (Mitropolsky), who had arrived the day before he left. While he was in New York City he consecrated on November 12, 1870, the first Orthodox church there, Holy Trinity Greco-Russian Church organized by Father Nicholas Bjerring. On March 13, 1873, Bp. Paul was assigned ruling hierarch of the Diocese of Kamchatka, the Kurile Islands, and Blagoveshchensk. In this position he continued his labors in the missionary field where in addition to his missionary work in Siberia the missionary efforts of St. Nicholas of Japan were under his direction....
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Paul_%28Popov%29_of_Novoarkhangelsk

It closed in 1883.
http://books.google.com/books?id=0rOzGa-KjygC&pg=PA24&dq=Father+Nicholas+Bjerring+Denmark#v=onepage&q=Father%20Nicholas%20Bjerring%20Denmark&f=false

Btw the same work (cited by Holy Cross in its "[mis]Statement of the Ecumenical Patriarchate" in response to Met. Jonah) mentiones (p. 27) that during the paper jurisdiction of the CoG over the Americas, "Lambros Coromillas, who was the Greek ambassador to the United States,viewing religion as the "medieval hinderance"...wanting the Church to remain headless so that he could become the unquestioned leader of his compatriots in the United States."

In the meantime, the Russians were building an American hierachy, based in New York.  As the Cathedral of All ORTHODOXY in America at the time the temple of Hellenism was being founded says:

Quote
The Russian Orthodox Cathedral of St. Nicholas, at 15 East 97th Street, was built in 1902...The Church of St. Nicholas was established in the early 1890's in rented rooms on lower second avenue to serve an increasing number of russian immigrants. By 1899 it had had 300 members, and a movement began to build a new church...in May 1901, when the cornerstone was laid..."long live the Emperor of Russia and the President of the United States," proclaimed the rev. Alexander Hotovitsky, the minister...In 1904, the crowd outside the church was so huge when bishop Tikhon dedicated a new iconostasis, or altar screen, that the police had to hold them back. ...The next year the headquarters of the Russian Orthodox Church moved from San Francisco to New York, and St. Nicholas became the Cathedral of the American Church.
http://www.russianchurchusa.org/index.php3?mode=985&ln=en

So have an Orthodox chapel set up under the direct auspices of the senior hiearch of the Russian Church in New York in 1870, serving the Greek consul and his compatriots, consecrated by a BISHOP.  Around the same time the Greeks were getting together to have their own Church, but before they were chartered, we have Arabs and Russians with a BISHOP celebrating a PONTIFICAL DL in their Church in New York, to celebrate the arrival of a future saint, who, would be the first Orthodox bishop consecrated in the New World, consecrated in the New York Cathedral:
Quote
St Raphael was consecrated Bishop of Brooklyn on March 13, 1904, by St Tikhon and Bishop Innocent of Alaska (not to be confused with the earlier St Innocent)...The first thing to know about Bishop Raphael’s consecration is the crowd – the enormous, crushing crowd. Two thousand people – some worshippers, some sightseers – were crammed like sardines into the cathedral on Brooklyn’s Pacific Street...Adding to the chaos were the newspaper photographers, one of whom chose to take a picture at the moment of consecration... it was quite a ceremony. No less than four canonized saints participated – Raphael, Tikhon [the bishop in New York], Alexis Toth, and Alexander Hotovitzky [rector of the New York Cathedral]...As far as the general public was concerned, the consecration was a decidedly Russian affair. The newspapers referred to it as being at the Tsar’s orders, and at the celebratory dinner, the Tsar was toasted and the Russian national anthem was sung. One of the first public acts of the new Bishop Raphael was to visit the Russian ambassador in Washington.[v]

These facts did not please the local Greeks one bit. They saw it as an act of Russian imperial expansion, and it contributed to the growing Greek fear that Russian Church aimed to spread its influence across Orthodoxy worldwide. The Greek consul in New York chose not to attend the consecration, and his absence itself made headlines.[vi][Cf. “Greeks Angry at the Czar,” New York Sun (March 15, 1904), 12 and “Fear Russian Rule of Church,” New York Tribune (March 15, 1904), 6.] A few weeks later, on Holy Friday, Bishop Tikhon tried to visit Holy Trinity, one of the Greek churches in New York. Fr. John Erickson writes, “He was barred from entering by its angry trustees, who feared a Russian takeover of their parish properties.

not to mention canonical episcopal oversight. Roll Eyes
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,590



« Reply #11 on: August 24, 2009, 03:46:59 PM »

And you actually think I read that^?

You mean the authorized Greek interpretation of the canons?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,590



« Reply #12 on: August 25, 2009, 08:35:54 AM »

I was reminded of the present Greek hiearch of the Cathedral I started off with.

Quote
Metropolitan Methodios: Urgent Need for a Missionary Effort
  |    |  John Couretas  |  August 20, 2009

Thoughts for the New Ecclesiastical Year

By Metropolitan Methodios
As we begin the new ecclesiastical year, I urge you to reflect upon the theme chosen for the last Clergy Laity Congress, “Gather My People to My Home.” It is critically important for us all — clergy and laity — to respond to the call of the Church to undertake a Missionary effort in our parishes. We must to open the embrace of every Community to welcome the sojourners of life to quench their spiritual thirsts at the well of Orthodoxy. We must welcome brethren to dialogue – to discuss their concerns, their questions, their visions and yes, their complaints and disappointments with the Church.

Opening our embrace and welcoming our brethren does not mean sitting in our offices or Parish Council meeting rooms. It means finding all those not connected with the Church wherever they may be — in their homes, where they work, where they spend their time. We have to feel the same imperative that Jesus had when he encountered Zaccheus at the sycamore tree. He urged him to climb down “quickly” for he had to stay at his house that day! There was no time to lose, for the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost sheep of the house of Israel. That particular day, the lost sheep was Zaccheus.

We must feel the urgency to undertake this missionary effort immediately. There is no time to waste. Just look around you the next time you are in church — not so much to see who is there, or when they arrived, or where they chose to sit. Notice rather those who are not present for a sundry of reasons — your family members, your friends, your acquaintances. And then do something! Stop “brainstorming” about what needs to be done and begin doing it.
http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/2009/08/metropolitan-methodios-urgent-need-for-a-missionary-effort/

I reminded by a comment of what I have heard rumored, that this "missionary" bishop has excommunicated the OCA:
Quote
Your Eminence!

How about showing some humility and leadership and healing that rift with the OCA that you brought on by your own inflated desire to be the head byzantine in Boston? (Is that problem resolved?) How about some support for American Orthodoxy (as you did once before you flip-flopped) instead of demonizing American Orthodox Christians?

Your words may say one thing but your actions tell a completely different story.

Why would I want to be gathered home to a community where words like omogenia (same race) are used? Why would I want to be gathered home to a community that often worships in a language nobody speaks anymore? How can these realities be considered missionary?

You talk about welcoming our brother but after 50 years of celebrating together you made it possible for the Orthodox in Worcester to not be able to celebrate the Sunday of Orthodoxy because you do not know how to get along with other people.

And you continually worship with the Catholics of Worcester but the orthodox of Worcester can no longer worship together because of your sinful ego. Shame, Shame, Shame.

It is time for your humility to take over and admit you blew it and take away the excommunication of the OCA. Who do you think you are anyway?

May God have mercy on you!

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,070


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #13 on: August 25, 2009, 08:49:53 AM »

I reminded by a comment of what I have heard rumored, that this "missionary" bishop has excommunicated the OCA:

He didn't excommunicate the OCA.  He told his clergy not to concelebrate after the election of the OCA Bishop in Boston.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,590



« Reply #14 on: August 25, 2009, 09:52:20 AM »

I reminded by a comment of what I have heard rumored, that this "missionary" bishop has excommunicated the OCA:

He didn't excommunicate the OCA.  He told his clergy not to concelebrate after the election of the OCA Bishop in Boston.

And why was that....?

It may be remembered, that the OCA bishop is the successor of Fan Noli, the founder of the Albanian Autocephalous Church: the Greek Church, which had recently dispensed with the services of the resident Syrian priest under the Russian bishop in SF, excommunicated Albanians for speaking Albanian, another example of how the Synod the EP held against the Bulgarians some time prior was a shame.  As was the idea that the Greeks could freelance in North America.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2009, 09:56:04 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #15 on: August 25, 2009, 03:04:25 PM »

And you actually think I read that^?

You mean the authorized Greek interpretation of the canons?

What 'authorizing' body exists? In other topics you jihad would be called proof-texting.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,070


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #16 on: August 25, 2009, 03:23:05 PM »

He didn't excommunicate the OCA.  He told his clergy not to concelebrate after the election of the OCA Bishop in Boston.

And why was that....?

It may be remembered, that the OCA bishop is the successor of Fan Noli, the founder of the Albanian Autocephalous Church: the Greek Church, which had recently dispensed with the services of the resident Syrian priest under the Russian bishop in SF, excommunicated Albanians for speaking Albanian, another example of how the Synod the EP held against the Bulgarians some time prior was a shame.  As was the idea that the Greeks could freelance in North America.

Instead of giving credence to your speculation (which is a bit of a stretch, that His Eminence +METHODIOS' actions are somehow related, mind you), I could just remind you of what the usual objection of the GOA hierarchs has been over the last 5-10 years: "You (OCA & AOA) have been blasting away about ending the jurisdictional mess in this country (and have been chastising the GOA for 'not helping') - so why put another bishop where I am right now?"  It's the same message that His Eminence +MAXIMOS used (except more polite, I'm sure) with the AOA when they were about to put a bishop in Pittsburgh... (Of course, the AOA put their words into action and moved the bishop from Pittsburgh to Charleston (& Oakland).)
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #17 on: August 25, 2009, 03:30:14 PM »

Ahem...Oakland IS in Pittsburgh.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,469


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 25, 2009, 03:44:51 PM »

Ahem...Oakland IS in Pittsburgh.

Not only that, but pretty darn near the geographical center of the City of Pittsburgh!
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,590



« Reply #19 on: August 25, 2009, 04:25:38 PM »

And you actually think I read that^?

You mean the authorized Greek interpretation of the canons?

What 'authorizing' body exists? In other topics you jihad would be called proof-texting.

The EP:
Quote
The era of Ottoman domination is far from being devoid of interest for the historian of canon law. Nonetheless, even more than in the Middle Ages, the actions of the hierarchy on this subject were taken in the field of case law.19 We have to wait till the turn of the eighteenth century to see the appearance of a new commentary on the corpus of received canons in the Greek Orthodox Church. In 1800, the first edition of the Pedalion was published.20 The text of each canon is followed by a paraphrase in modern Greek along with a commentary often based on Byzantine canonists. Moreover, we find disgressions on different canonical or liturgical points among these numerous and often wordy notes. According to the title of the work, the editors were hieromonk Agapios and the monk Nicodemus (St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite). In reality the essential parts of the work are the work of the latter.21 After some delays, the book received the official approval of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The reservations set out in the letter of Patriarch Neophyte VII, August, 1902, concerned only changes introduced by hieromonk Theodoret without the knowledge of the authors.22

        The Pedalion has always enjoyed a great reputation in Greek-speaking Churches; this is obvious from its many reprintings, without, of course, the far-fetched additions of Theodoret. We can explain this success in different ways: the translation of the canons was done in paraphrases; the commentaries and the notes make for relatively easy reading, even for churchmen and monks having little education. The liturgical and pastoral directives, as well as other additional material, are of obvious practical interest for the clergy. This recension of the canons is on the whole correct, as we can see by comparing the present text with critical editions which we now have. St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite was no stranger to the concerns of textual criticism; this is obvious from his notes, which give the most characteristic variants of the recension of John the Scholastic. Having said this, we must not, however, overestimate the value of the Pedalion. It constitutes, first and foremost, a valuable witness for the understanding of the milieu in which it was formed.23 As for treating the Pedalion as the perfect and therefore untouchable expression of Orthodox canon law, such an attitude is a manifest exaggeration which we often meet in a strict, integrist environment. St. Nicodemus' position on the invalidity of Roman Catholic baptism is particularily appreciated in that milieu.24
http://books.google.com/books?id=Umse6CFnt3MC&pg=PA4&dq=Pedalion+Patriarch+Neophyte#v=onepage&q=Pedalion%20Patriarch%20Neophyte&f=false
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/_P1.HTM

As to the proof texting, the problem is we are dealing with something that doesn't exist: no one interpreted canon 28 like the EP does now before Met/Arb/EP/Pope Meletios, who, however, when he became Pope saw fit to expand his jurisdcition without consulting the EP (his predecessor, Pope Photios exanded, or rather restored, the Synod so as to back up his forbidding a legate of Constantinople to set foot in Egypt.  With the restored synod he was able to consecrate bishops etc. without Constantinople.  He also learned Arabic).

So again, just one example that supports the Ultramontanist interpretation of canon 28 before 1908. It should not be hard.

St. Nikolai Velimirovich seemed not to have ever heard of it before he did from the deposed Meletios' lips:
Quote
After losing the see of Athens, in February 1921 Meletios set off for America. At that time, according to the decsion of the Sacred Episcopal Council of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SOC), Bishop (now Saint) Nicholas Velimirovic had been sent with a mandate ‘to investigate the situation, needs and wishes of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the United States’. In his report to the Sacred Episcopal Council on 13/26 June 1921, Vladyka Nicholas mentions meeting Meletios, also informing them that:

‘The position of the Greeks was explained to me best of all by the Metropolitan of Athens, Meletios Metaksakis, who is now in exile in America, and Bishop Alexander of Rhodes, whom the same Metropolitan Meletios sent to America three years ago and to whom he delegated duties as Bishop of the Greek Church in America.

Metropolitan Meletios considers that, according to the canons, the supreme oversight of the Church in America is to belong to the Patriarch of Constantinople. He quotes Canon 28 of the Fourth Oecumenical Council, according to which all churches in ‘barbarian’ lands belong to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch in Constantinople. In his opinion, this jurisdiction would be more honorary than anything else, and would be more real only in matters of appeal on the part of a dissatisfied party’ (6)(6] Bishop Nikolai Velimirovich, Collected Works, Vol. 10, 1983. p. 467 (In Serbian).
http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/meletios.htm
« Last Edit: August 25, 2009, 04:26:09 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,590



« Reply #20 on: August 25, 2009, 04:43:46 PM »

He didn't excommunicate the OCA.  He told his clergy not to concelebrate after the election of the OCA Bishop in Boston.

And why was that....?

It may be remembered, that the OCA bishop is the successor of Fan Noli, the founder of the Albanian Autocephalous Church: the Greek Church, which had recently dispensed with the services of the resident Syrian priest under the Russian bishop in SF, excommunicated Albanians for speaking Albanian, another example of how the Synod the EP held against the Bulgarians some time prior was a shame.  As was the idea that the Greeks could freelance in North America.

Instead of giving credence to your speculation (which is a bit of a stretch, that His Eminence +METHODIOS' actions are somehow related, mind you), I could just remind you of what the usual objection of the GOA hierarchs has been over the last 5-10 years: "You (OCA & AOA) have been blasting away about ending the jurisdictional mess in this country (and have been chastising the GOA for 'not helping') - so why put another bishop where I am right now?"  It's the same message that His Eminence +MAXIMOS used (except more polite, I'm sure) with the AOA when they were about to put a bishop in Pittsburgh... (Of course, the AOA put their words into action and moved the bishop from Pittsburgh to Charleston (& Oakland).)

The see being in Chaleston makes sense: St. Raphael founded the Church there. In a united Church, perhaps Pittsburgh would go to the Carpatho-Russians. Better than Amissos. Where's that? Anywhere near Johnstown? Tongue

In a united Church the Albanians should have the Boston Cathedral, which they have.  The OCA one, that is: in a united Church it would be sweet justice if they, given the story of the beginning of the Albanians Church, got Annunciation too.

That is why I should thing that +Nikon should have been enthroned in Boston.  To maintain and guard tradition.  I'd like the Greek bishop to be in New Orleans for the same reason.

It is not the OCA which requires one bishop per city, but the canons. In particular, why should the OCA discontinue in SF, Chicago, and NYC the episcopal line, seeing as it extends long beyond when the first Greek bishop set foot in America?

I'd be quite fine if Bp. Melchisedec was moved elsewhere, but that has a lot to do with +Maximos personally.  Ditto Bp. Isaiah in Denver.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,070


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #21 on: August 25, 2009, 04:52:05 PM »

Ahem...Oakland IS in Pittsburgh.

Not only that, but pretty darn near the geographical center of the City of Pittsburgh!

I'm well aware of that fact - that's why I put Charleston first (and, the fact that ISTM the see has essentially been moved to Charleston anyway).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,273


WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 25, 2009, 04:54:32 PM »

Like with the AOA, why can't Met. Methodios become Metropolitan of Brookline, where His see is physically located, rather than Boston which is now a ceremonial see from what I understand?   Huh
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,070


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #23 on: August 25, 2009, 05:31:28 PM »

Like with the AOA, why can't Met. Methodios become Metropolitan of Brookline, where His see is physically located, rather than Boston which is now a ceremonial see from what I understand?   Huh

His offices are in Brookline, but the Cathedral Church is in Boston.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,780



« Reply #24 on: August 25, 2009, 05:36:54 PM »

I must admit that I have not digested ialmisry's very thorough material. I see couple of trends and I would like to make one comment.

Trend 1. Forum members who are members of the GOA have generally been reluctant in delving into the substance of what is presented. Their comments rather tend to delve into side issues. BTW, I have seen this tendency also in other threads. I do not know why, except I could speculate that it may be the "us vs. them" phenomenon kicking in (or for the reason given in trend 2).

Trend 2. In contrast with those who are delving into side issues, there are some who reject ialmisry's material without even reading it. I do not think that this is helpful. On the other hand, I do not know if this reaction is because this issue had previously been addressed seriously and some folks have gone on into "reject whatever he says" mode. I kind understand that but why post your unkind rejection that makes you look bad?

Comment. I generally agree with ialmisry and respect his zeal and scholarship. Furthermore, we do need somebody to document and argue the anti-EP case. God  knows there are lots of people who are doing the opposite. Neither side should be condemned for this. For example, ialmisry and I, among others, vehemently disagreed with the Secretary of the Holy Synod but we never NOT read his argument or called him a kook wearing a tinfoil hat. I think that this is more than an esoteric issue and should not be dismissed out of hand or out of an excess deference to the hierarchy or one's own church. Finally, while the AOA and OCA forum members have displayed a variety of opinions regarding troubles/issues in their own jurisdictions, the GOA members and their EP allies have shown remarkable discipline in not doing so (with minor but notable exceptions). I just do not think that this situation is healthy in the long run, particularly because if we are ever to be united we need to be open and truthful with each other.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2009, 05:38:41 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,273


WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 25, 2009, 05:57:25 PM »

Like with the AOA, why can't Met. Methodios become Metropolitan of Brookline, where His see is physically located, rather than Boston which is now a ceremonial see from what I understand?   Huh

His offices are in Brookline, but the Cathedral Church is in Boston.

I read that part of the Metropolis of Boston's plans was to build a replacement Cathedral in Brookline.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,070


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #26 on: August 25, 2009, 06:05:07 PM »

His offices are in Brookline, but the Cathedral Church is in Boston.

I read that part of the Metropolis of Boston's plans was to build a replacement Cathedral in Brookline.

Maybe once upon a time; now, it would be quite costly to build a Cathedral in Brookline (where the little undeveloped land in the neighborhood of the Metropolis is valued at nearly $1 million per acre, so one can imagine how much developed land would cost).
« Last Edit: August 25, 2009, 06:06:15 PM by cleveland » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,273


WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 25, 2009, 06:10:39 PM »

Maybe once upon a time; now, it would be quite costly to build a Cathedral in Brookline (where the little undeveloped land in the neighborhood of the Metropolis is valued at nearly $1 million per acre, so one can imagine how much developed land would cost).

Oh, I forget that the Archdiocese owns the land where the Seminary and other structures are located.

I thought that the Metropolis of Boston owned a lot of land in Brookline, adjacent to the Seminary, for the Maliotis Cultural Center, the non-existent Cathedral and other structures.  I could be mistaken for it's been 14 years since I listened to the goings on in Boston.   Embarrassed
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,070


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #28 on: August 25, 2009, 06:18:46 PM »

Oh, I forget that the Archdiocese owns the land where the Seminary and other structures are located.

I thought that the Metropolis of Boston owned a lot of land in Brookline, adjacent to the Seminary, for the Maliotis Cultural Center, the non-existent Cathedral and other structures.  I could be mistaken for it's been 14 years since I listened to the goings on in Boston.   Embarrassed

Besides the land ownership issues, that area of Brookline isn't easy to get around, and doesn't like too much commotion.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,070


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #29 on: August 26, 2009, 01:59:42 PM »

As to the proof texting, the problem is we are dealing with something that doesn't exist: no one interpreted canon 28 like the EP does now before Met/Arb/EP/Pope Meletios, who, however, when he became Pope saw fit to expand his jurisdcition without consulting the EP (his predecessor, Pope Photios exanded, or rather restored, the Synod so as to back up his forbidding a legate of Constantinople to set foot in Egypt.  With the restored synod he was able to consecrate bishops etc. without Constantinople.  He also learned Arabic).

So again, just one example that supports the Ultramontanist interpretation of canon 28 before 1908. It should not be hard.

St. Nikolai Velimirovich seemed not to have ever heard of it before he did from the deposed Meletios' lips:

Give me your thoughts on this (copied from the Facebook group "Society for Orthodox Christian History in the Americas"):

Quote
It is often asserted that Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis invented the idea that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has authority to extend its jurisdiction beyond its traditional boundaries into the so-called “diaspora.” This is the Patriarchate’s current interpretation of Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, which Meletios used in 1921-22 in order to justify his establishment of the Greek Archdiocese. He has received much criticism for this supposed invention.

Yet in 1908, when Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III (Souris) (r. 1878-84, 1901-1912) issued a tomos transferring the Greek churches in America temporarily from his own jurisdiction to the jurisdiction of the Church of Greece, he wrote:

“For, it is obvious that neither the Holy Church of Greece, having been granted by our Patriarchate the status of autocephality within strictly defined jurisdictional boundaries, nor any other Church or Patriarchate, could canonically extend its authority beyond the boundaries of its defined jurisdiction except our Apostolic and Patriarchal Ecumenical Throne; this both by virtue of the privilege accorded to it to ordain bishops in the barbarian lands which are beyond the defined limits of the ecclesiastical jurisdictions, and by virtue of its seniority to extend its ultimate protection to the said Churches in foreign territories.”(*)

This is the same Patriarch Joachim who is supposed to have refused to send a Greek bishop to America because he recognized Russian authority there. The tomos was entitled “Concerning the Grant to the Most Holy Church of Greece of the privilege of canonical sovereign jurisdiction for the spiritual protection and supervision of all the Orthodox Greeks in the diaspora in Europe, America and other countries, excepting only the Orthodox Greek Church of Venice.”

Commentary: Posting this source should not be construed as agreement with its contents and/or canonical interpretations. This is simply meant to illumine the discussion on these two points:

    * Whether Meletios Metaxakis invented this idea about the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1921-22.
    * Whether Joachim really believed that America belonged to the Russians and not to himself.

(*)“O Patriarchikos kai Synodikos Tomos,” Ekklesiastike Alletheia 3 (1908): 183. Referenced in FitzGerald, Thomas E. The Orthodox Church. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1995, p. 134, note 13.

Also quoted in Trempelas, Panagiotis. The Autocephaly of the Metropolia in America. Brookline, Massachusetts: Holy Cross School of Theology Press, 1974, pp. 25-26.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 03:14:23 PM by cleveland » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,070


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #30 on: August 26, 2009, 02:03:58 PM »

Might as well include this one too (from the same Facebook Group).



Quote
L to R: G. Polis, Bp. Alexander (Demoglou), Metr. Platon (Rozhdestvensky), Abp. Meletios (Metaxakis), Abp. Alexander (Nemolovsky), Bp. Aftimios (Ofiesh), Adn. Vsevolod (Andronoff)

Few photos from the early 20th century history of American Orthodoxy are so rich in significance as this one. This was taken during the 1921 visit of then-deposed Abp. Meletios (Metxakis) of Athens to America, beginning the process of founding the Greek Archdiocese. He came traveling with Bp. Alexander (Demoglou), who would become the first Greek Archbishop of America. Meletios and Alexander did a remarkable amount of work toward uniting the Greek parishes in America, which were numerous by this time and deeply divided along political lines, with factions supporting either the Greek monarchy or the Venizelist democratizers. Meletios was later elected as Ecumenical Patriarch in November of this same year.

1921 also saw the arrival in America of Metr. Platon (Rozhdestvensky), who had previously been the Russian primate in America but had returned to Russia and now subsequently fled back to America as a refugee. His see was in Odessa, but with the encroachment of the Red Army, he abandoned it and was later popularly acclaimed as primate again in America (a status later denied him by Patriarch St. Tikhon, though possibly under duress from the Soviets). He and Abp. Alexander Nemolovsky flank Meletios. Alexander was the Russian primate in America at the time, though he would later resign in 1922 and return to Europe. In 1923, Platon was acclaimed primate.

To the right of Alexander stand Bp. Aftimios (Ofiesh), the successor to St. Raphael Hawaweeny in the see of Brooklyn as head of the Syro-Arab diocese under the Russians. By this time, the Syrians were already deeply divided, with a rogue faction being led by Metr. Germanos (Shehadi), a renegade bishop who had abandoned his own archdiocese in Lebanon. In 1927, with the imprimatur of Platon, Aftimios founded the American Orthodox Catholic Church, the first attempt at an autocephalous church for America. When Platon eventually distanced himself from the project, Aftimios repudiated the former’s authority and declared that he had had no right to be acclaimed primate, since he was so without the patriarch’s sanction.

Next to Aftimios is Archdeacon Vsevelod (Andronoff), who was the cathedral deacon at the Russian cathedral in New York.

Who G. Polis is (far left) is not clear, but he appears in several photographs from Meletios’s time in New York. He may have been a prominent local layman accompanying the bishop in his travels.

This photograph was found in the archives of the Library of Congress. As yet, there have been no official documents that have surfaced detailing what this 1921 meeting must have entailed. It might have been only a courtesy call, with a photo op at the end. Whatever it may have included, it’s at least clear who is regarded as the senior cleric among them (Meletios), despite his status at the time as having been deposed from the see of Athens.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,347


metron ariston


« Reply #31 on: August 26, 2009, 02:34:48 PM »

Forum members who are members of the GOA have generally been reluctant in delving into the substance of what is presented.

The main reason is obvious: Isa hasn't presented anything original, and his intention is not to learn or dialogue, but to castigate and spread calumny.

We've all read these sources -- plus many others -- and his "scholarship" on threads like these consists of selective quotations and bizarre interpretations that evince ignorance of the larger body of evidence. (That's understandable, since much of it isn't in English and certainly isn't online. But it doesn't make it any less ignorant.)
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,780



« Reply #32 on: August 26, 2009, 03:16:08 PM »

Forum members who are members of the GOA have generally been reluctant in delving into the substance of what is presented.

The main reason is obvious: Isa hasn't presented anything original, and his intention is not to learn or dialogue, but to castigate and spread calumny.

We've all read these sources -- plus many others -- and his "scholarship" on threads like these consists of selective quotations and bizarre interpretations that evince ignorance of the larger body of evidence. (That's understandable, since much of it isn't in English and certainly isn't online. But it doesn't make it any less ignorant.)

Thanks, I am glad that the reason was "history." To help my understanding, though, it would be helpful if you would point me to previous threads that had addressed Isa's points. Could you also summarize the the larger body of evidence that is not available in English and is not online. Thanks again!
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,590



« Reply #33 on: August 26, 2009, 04:03:22 PM »

Forum members who are members of the GOA have generally been reluctant in delving into the substance of what is presented.

The main reason is obvious: Isa hasn't presented anything original,

Original from me?  Of course not, I'm ORTHODOX.  If you want novel, talk to the ELCA.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22960.0.html

Of course, I've presented the Orthodox, i.e. original interpretations of the canons without Ultramontanist accretions.

Quote
and his intention is not to learn or dialogue, but to castigate and spread calumny.

Like the Chief Secretary? No, I'm just presenting the facs, which can, unlike the CS's words, be verified.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20260.0.html

Quote
We've all read these sources -- plus many others -- and his "scholarship" on threads like these consists of selective quotations and bizarre interpretations


In the case on point, the interpretation of the vast majority of the Orthodox throughout the world.  As Met. Jonah pointed out, it is basically only the interpretation of the Greek/Hellenic Churches.

Quote
that evince ignorance of the larger body of evidence. (That's understandable, since much of it isn't in English and certainly isn't online.

Yes, we have dealt with this before:
Quote
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20026.msg298105/topicseen.html#msg298105
Quote
David Newman on March 04, 2009, 05:47:07 PM

These aren't secret manuscripts. They have been known to the Church for 2,000 years. They might seem secret to you because you don't deal with primary sources. And you don't deal on a scholarly level
.


Known to the Church for 2,000 years, eh?  Interesting, as since the Church was born at Pentacost, she knew these "sources" before her birth.  Before the NT in fact.

What are these "sources?"  "The Lost Years of Jesus?"  "The DaVinci Code?" "Jesus in Kashmir?"

I'm sorry, I have to disagree Quinault: this is all too amuzing to be insulting.

Quote
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20026.msg298411/topicseen.html#msg298411
Quote
David Newman on March 05, 2009, 10:59:43 PM
I use primary source material. You have to visit places like Harvard and other places to get access to them.


Really?  At the University of Chicago of MA?

When I used to work at the University of Chicago librairies while getting my PhD in Early Islamic History (I studied late Antiquity and European Civ. too), I often was in the Rare Book collection.  Give me the manuscript/bibliographical info.  I'll find it.

Quote
A friend of mind has it all in his yet to be published book. I am one of only a handful in the world who have his book in manuscript form. Those who deal on a scholalrly level are familiar with my sources.

No, we're not.

Quote
And as I said earlier, no I don't have another account. I might have opened one long ago. I've been around.

CAF?  I'm sure you have.

Quote
This thread was supposed to be on the pope being the head of the Church. No one has refuted the sources I gave proving he was viewed as the head, and there are many more, believe me.


OzGeorge is spot on.

Quote
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20026.msg298406/topicseen.html#msg298406
Quote
David Newman on March 05, 2009, 10:59:43 PM
No one has refuted the sources I gave proving he was viewed as the head, and there are many more, believe me.

That's because you refuse to give the sources.


Quote
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20026.msg297965/topicseen.html#msg297965
Quote from: Innocent
Quote
Quote from: Fr. Anastasios on March 04, 2009, 11:15:18 AM
Quote
Quote from: David Newman on March 04, 2009, 06:59:17 AM
Quote
Quote from: Irish Hermit on March 04, 2009, 06:54:37 AM
These quotes are such great support for the modern claims of the papacy that every Catholic apologist would have them displayed and highlighted on his website.   WHY aren't they being used by Rome to support its position?
Because I am one of only a few people in the world that have access to this kind of primary source material. Believe it or not. I don't care.

This is a discussion forum, not a place to taunt people with your supposed secret knowledge.
Fr Anastasios
I have a picture of "David" in my mind sitting in a cave on top of a mountain with piles of ancient secrete manuscripts around him and typing feversly on his keyboard. This same cave is home to the Yeti and Unicorns!!
 

If there was ANY evidence, SOME of it would show up SOMEWHERE.

Quote
But it doesn't make it any less ignorant.)
ξύλα καὶ λίθοις
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,590



« Reply #34 on: August 26, 2009, 04:16:49 PM »

As to the proof texting, the problem is we are dealing with something that doesn't exist: no one interpreted canon 28 like the EP does now before Met/Arb/EP/Pope Meletios, who, however, when he became Pope saw fit to expand his jurisdcition without consulting the EP (his predecessor, Pope Photios exanded, or rather restored, the Synod so as to back up his forbidding a legate of Constantinople to set foot in Egypt.  With the restored synod he was able to consecrate bishops etc. without Constantinople.  He also learned Arabic).

So again, just one example that supports the Ultramontanist interpretation of canon 28 before 1908. It should not be hard.

St. Nikolai Velimirovich seemed not to have ever heard of it before he did from the deposed Meletios' lips:

Give me your thoughts on this (copied from the Facebook group "Society for Orthodox Christian History in the Americas"):

Quote
It is often asserted that Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis invented the idea that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has authority to extend its jurisdiction beyond its traditional boundaries into the so-called “diaspora.” This is the Patriarchate’s current interpretation of Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, which Meletios used in 1921-22 in order to justify his establishment of the Greek Archdiocese. He has received much criticism for this supposed invention.

Yet in 1908, when Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III (Souris) (r. 1878-84, 1901-1912) issued a tomos transferring the Greek churches in America temporarily from his own jurisdiction to the jurisdiction of the Church of Greece, he wrote:

“For, it is obvious that neither the Holy Church of Greece, having been granted by our Patriarchate the status of autocephality within strictly defined jurisdictional boundaries, nor any other Church or Patriarchate, could canonically extend its authority beyond the boundaries of its defined jurisdiction except our Apostolic and Patriarchal Ecumenical Throne; this both by virtue of the privilege accorded to it to ordain bishops in the barbarian lands which are beyond the defined limits of the ecclesiastical jurisdictions, and by virtue of its seniority to extend its ultimate protection to the said Churches in foreign territories.”

This is the same Patriarch Joachim who is supposed to have refused to send a Greek bishop to America because he recognized Russian authority there. The tomos was entitled “Concerning the Grant to the Most Holy Church of Greece of the privilege of canonical sovereign jurisdiction for the spiritual protection and supervision of all the Orthodox Greeks in the diaspora in Europe, America and other countries, excepting only the Orthodox Greek Church of Venice.”

Commentary: Posting this source should not be construed as agreement with its contents and/or canonical interpretations. This is simply meant to illumine the discussion on these two points:

    * Whether Meletios Metaxakis invented this idea about the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1921-22.
    * Whether Joachim really believed that America belonged to the Russians and not to himself.

  • “O Patriarchikos kai Synodikos Tomos,” Ekklesiastike Alletheia 3 (1908): 183. Referenced in FitzGerald, Thomas E. The Orthodox Church. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1995, p. 134, note 13.[/i]

    Also quoted in Trempelas, Panagiotis. The Autocephaly of the Metropolia in America. Brookline, Massachusetts: Holy Cross School of Theology Press, 1974, pp. 25-26.
I already had, on the same site on the post you quote:
Quote
As to the first question, Meletios definitely was not a true believer in it, for when he went on to become Pope of Alexandria, he proclaimed his jurisdiction to include “All of Africa” (in imitation of the Coptic Pope I believe). As the Patriarchate’s web site states:

He systematized the Ecclesiastical Courts, and established the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate on all of Africa, and instituted the title “All Africa” instead of “All Egypt”.

Since the Pedalion shows no knowledge of the EP’s present interpretation of canon 28, the question is, when did it start?

To answer Meletios involvement, we first might have to determine where he was, who he was with, and what he was doing in 1908. In that year he had been expelled from Palestine for “activity against the Holy Sepulchre” (?), along with another future Archbishop of Athens, Chrysostomos. Yet two years later he was elevated to metropolitan in Cyprus, and four years later candidate for the throne of Constantinople to succeed Ioakim. In between, his relation Eleftherios Venizelos had taken over Greece. This period, and not 1921-22, is the one to look to see if Meletios was the source of the novel interpretation of canon 28, or just an elaborator thereof.

As to Ioakim’s belief on his juridiction, we would find that out if we figure out why Meletios, in his official report to the Church of Greece on America, denies any knowledge of the Russian hierarchy in America. Since the Greek Consul general George Fisher was involved in the founding of the cathedral in San Francisco, the Greek Counsul snubbed the consecration of St. Raphael, the complaints of “Tsarist pressure,” etc…, we know that truth was not Meletius’ concern when he feigned ignorance of the Russian Archdiocese. What was?

The reference to "Tsarist pressure" it to this:
http://orthodoxhistory.org/?p=286#comments
Quote
Alexander’s replies to Aftimios are consistent in asserting the now-infamous interpretation of Chalcedon Canon 28, namely, that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has jurisdiction in the “diaspora.” He also writes that Alaska, while it was Russian territory, rightly belonged to Moscow, but that it is another thing entirely to “jump” from there to Canada and the U.S.

As I was re-reading some of this correspondence, I was interested in note one element of Alexander’s arguments (quoted here verbatim from a March 4, 1929, letter to Aftimios
  • ):


The Canons, which you mis-quote, do not apply in the case of the Orthodox Church in America. They regard certain provinces, particularly rural localities, outside the defined limits of established Patriarchates or autocephalous Churches or Metropolises. How could it be otherwise, since, in accordance with Canon 28 of the Fourth Oecumenical Council, (and as you confess in your letter) the Oecumenical Patriarhate (or as you rather contemtuously prefer to call it the Constantinople Patriarchate and the Constantinopolitan Bishops) “has the primary right to assert jurisdiction over the faithful in the Diaspora”, (which includes American as well). Such being the case, it makes no difference if our Russian brethren attempted to impose their ecclesiastical rule in a territory canonically accorded to the Oecumenical Patriarchate, no matter if these attempts lasted for 3, 30 or 130 years. Te lawful incumbent does not thereby lose his rights to the pretenders. The Russians were all this time conscious of their precarious un-canonical standing, and that is why they exercized, during the Tsarist Regime immense political pressure to bear upon the Oecumenical Patriarchate to force it to accept and recognize the Russian claims over the Orthodox in America. In selfdefense, the Patriarchate temporarily conceded the Churches of America to the Church of Greece. You are, no doubt, familiar with the sinister designs of the overthrown Tsarist Regime of Russia, and, especially, of the then powerful Pan-Slavistic Society, seeking to promulgate, under the cloak of religion, the abortive ends of the oppressing Tsarist Russian Imperialism. Being of Syrian descent, you must of course be aware of their intrigues in connection with the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem, with Mt. Athos and so on. Likewise, American Orthodoxy felt the weight of similar designs and intrigues. Therefore, you are not supposed to be taken by surprise, when we speak of Tsarist pressure.

Alexander goes on in the same letter to rebut Aftimios’s claim that all Orthodox in America previously accepted Russian rule:


It is not true that any group of Greeks in America did ever willingly recognize the asserted Russian jurisdiction in America. On the contrary, it is historically true, that they fought staunchly these baseless claims, especially in 1907, when the Russian Church tried to legalize their pretentions by legislative act with the legislature of the State of New York. The Greeks rose as one man and happily annulled these designs. It is also a contravention of the true for you to assert that, at the time I came to this country, “I found one of your Syrian Priests (presumably the Rev. Joseph Xanthopoulos) in charge of a Parish of Greek people under your jurisdiction.” The Greek Communities of Wilkesbarre, Pa, and Scranton, Pa., where the said Priest has served, belonged always to the Greek Church. And not only the Greeks, but also the most important sections of other Orthodox nationalities in America, did and do reject the Russian jurisdiction....

As, I've posted before, Met/Arb/EP/Pope Meletios denied knowing of the Russian bishops in America. Yet here they claim that the Czar was pressuring Constantinople to accept Russian's claims.  How did Russia pressure without revealing they had bishops already in America.

As for Antioch, the same post of Fr. Andrew notes "No doubt this fell on fairly deaf ears, since the Tsarist government was looked upon by many Arab Orthodox Christians in the Middle East as a benefactor." Of course, not only in the Middle East-where Russian helped the Arabs to take back their own patriarchate from the Phanar, Constantinople retaliating to refuse to recognize the Antiochian patriarchates existence (whenever it sent things to the other autocephalous Churches, it omitted Antioch)-but in America as well, see below:

The reference to St. Raphael'consecration is to this:
http://orthodoxhistory.org/?p=199#comments
Quote
The first thing to know about Bishop Raphael’s consecration is the crowd – the enormous, crushing crowd. Two thousand people – some worshippers, some sightseers – were crammed like sardines into the cathedral on Brooklyn’s Pacific Street....Anyway, it was quite a ceremony. No less than four canonized saints participated – Raphael, Tikhon, Alexis Toth, and Alexander Hotovitzky...As far as the general public was concerned, the consecration was a decidedly Russian affair. The newspapers referred to it as being at the Tsar’s orders, and at the celebratory dinner, the Tsar was toasted and the Russian national anthem was sung. One of the first public acts of the new Bishop Raphael was to visit the Russian ambassador in Washington.[v]

These facts did not please the local Greeks one bit. They saw it as an act of Russian imperial expansion, and it contributed to the growing Greek fear that Russian Church aimed to spread its influence across Orthodoxy worldwide. The Greek consul in New York chose not to attend the consecration, and his absence itself made headlines.[vi] A few weeks later, on Holy Friday, Bishop Tikhon tried to visit Holy Trinity, one of the Greek churches in New York. Fr. John Erickson writes, “He was barred from entering by its angry trustees, who feared a Russian takeover of their parish properties.

Note: the GOANSA's "Cathedral of all of Hellenism in America" hadn't seen its first DL yet at the time.

to which I've added at the same site:
http://orthodoxhistory.org/?p=215#comments
Quote
A NY Times article headline (Sept. 15, 1895) sums it up:
“MINISTER FOR SYRIANS; Christian Church to be Filled by a Damascus Preacher. WILL ALSO VISIT OTHER CITIES Bishop of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands Asked the Emperor of Russia to Make the Appointment”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E0CE3D7173CE433A25756C1A96F9C94649ED7CF
It has a paragraph of particular interest:
“The Russian Bishop of Alaska, whose Episcopal See comprises all the United States, had been taking a great deal of interest in the Syrians of the Orthodox Greek Church who are in this country, and has quite recently prevailed upon the Russian Emperor and Synod to appoint a Syrian priest who studied in Russia as a pastor for orthodox Syrians in this country under the supervision of the Russian See…”
I continue to quote and end:
Quote
The NY Times article continues:
“When the Russian Bishop of Alaska received the letter, he wrote:
‘I am happy that God blessed this, my long desire, to give the American Arabians a native Arab pastor! The diocesan office will send a copy fo this charge to the rector of the Church in New York and another copy to the Arabian newspaper for the information of the Syrians in America. Further, Archimandrite Raphael will annually…visit the cites of the United States in which Arabians are more numerous, viz., Chicago, San Francisco, &c.

It would seem that Russians saw there jurisdiction encompassing the entire continenet, and that was accepted by non-Russian Orthodox, the public at large in America in 1895, and the Patriarchate of Antioch (btw, not yet freed in 1895 from the Phanariot yoke). They also had a Church in New York of some standing, which of course recognized their jurisidiction. The Greeks would not have even a congregational Church until St. Raphael was consecrated by the RM bishops in a consecrated Cathedral.


I've got to go pick up the boys.  To be continued....

That is a lot easier to digest.

What would you say to the assertion he makes in his quoted statement that Antioch sought the permission of the EP to send a bishop to the US?

Apart from the fact that I wouldn't trust anything asserted by Meletrios Metaxakis without evidence
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 04:24:27 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,347


metron ariston


« Reply #35 on: August 26, 2009, 04:32:34 PM »

For further examples of why he neither has -- nor wants -- interlocutors, see his bizarre response to my previous post.

Silly me, to even bother posting on this thread. Obviously the OP, who in his first post shared with us that he just "came across" such ground-breaking evidence as a newspaper article from 2003, has eminent credentials to speak to the history of the GOA; and, of course, only the innocent heart of a starry-eyed, fuzzy and snuggly six-week-old puppy when he peppers the posting of his new-found source material with sarcasm.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 04:40:18 PM by pensateomnia » Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,273


WWW
« Reply #36 on: August 26, 2009, 05:21:34 PM »

^ Here we go, this "historical" stuff rehashed time and time again.   Lips Sealed  Maybe in other threads, I provided my opinion based on historical facts but not to the extreme of beating the horse time and time again.   Shocked

The only benefit I received from this thread was asking why doesn't the Metropolis of Boston rename Herself to Metropolis of Brookline where I thought there was a replacement Cathedral, nothing more.   angel
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,780



« Reply #37 on: August 26, 2009, 05:26:17 PM »

For further examples of why he neither has -- nor wants -- interlocutors, see his bizarre response to my previous post.

Silly me, to even bother posting on this thread. Obviously the OP, who in his first post shared with us that he just "came across" such ground-breaking evidence as a newspaper article from 2003, has eminent credentials to speak to the history of the GOA; and, of course, only the innocent heart of a starry-eyed, fuzzy and snuggly six-week-old puppy when he peppers the posting of his new-found source material with sarcasm.

I am sort of disappointed as you have not responded to my query. I am also disappointed that you continue with ad hominem attacks. Finally, are you implying that one must be Greek or have a terminal degree on the history of EP, Greece and/or GOA to be able to talk about the history of the GOA? In that case, please pardon MY intrusion.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #38 on: August 26, 2009, 06:10:00 PM »

For further examples of why he neither has -- nor wants -- interlocutors, see his bizarre response to my previous post.

Silly me, to even bother posting on this thread. Obviously the OP, who in his first post shared with us that he just "came across" such ground-breaking evidence as a newspaper article from 2003, has eminent credentials to speak to the history of the GOA; and, of course, only the innocent heart of a starry-eyed, fuzzy and snuggly six-week-old puppy when he peppers the posting of his new-found source material with sarcasm.

He merely thinks he's a trial lawyer -all rhetoric to prevail at the cost of reality.

It's no wonder now why CAF dumped most Orthodox.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,273


WWW
« Reply #39 on: August 26, 2009, 06:37:26 PM »

I am sort of disappointed as you have not responded to my query. I am also disappointed that you continue with ad hominem attacks. Finally, are you implying that one must be Greek or have a terminal degree on the history of EP, Greece and/or GOA to be able to talk about the history of the GOA? In that case, please pardon MY intrusion.

One has a right to know regardless of ethnicity, language, culture, et al.  I ask for forgiveness.   angel 

It is people like me who know about the early history of the GOA except such history is moot.  It is good to know that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 or the first Orthodox Church was founded in New Orleans in 1864.  Beyond that, I find early Orthodox history to be an intellectual pursuit rather than a motive to grind an ax like "American Orthodox Unity."
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,590



« Reply #40 on: August 26, 2009, 06:55:42 PM »

For further examples of why he neither has -- nor wants -- interlocutors, see his bizarre response to my previous post.

This?

If there was ANY evidence, SOME of it would show up SOMEWHERE.

Quote
Silly me, to even bother posting on this thread. Obviously the OP, who in his first post shared with us that he just "came across" such ground-breaking evidence as a newspaper article from 2003, has eminent credentials to speak to the history of the GOA; and, of course, only the innocent heart of a starry-eyed, fuzzy and snuggly six-week-old puppy when he peppers the posting of his new-found source material with sarcasm.

I came across a couple things which, yes, came as no suprise. Still, interesting.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,590



« Reply #41 on: August 26, 2009, 06:58:37 PM »

For further examples of why he neither has -- nor wants -- interlocutors, see his bizarre response to my previous post.

Silly me, to even bother posting on this thread. Obviously the OP, who in his first post shared with us that he just "came across" such ground-breaking evidence as a newspaper article from 2003, has eminent credentials to speak to the history of the GOA; and, of course, only the innocent heart of a starry-eyed, fuzzy and snuggly six-week-old puppy when he peppers the posting of his new-found source material with sarcasm.

He merely thinks he's a trial lawyer -all rhetoric to prevail at the cost of reality.

It's no wonder now why CAF dumped most Orthodox.

I forgot:


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PkwoL2H7ldo/SlCfxqJu-DI/AAAAAAAAAJM/4qbVJI3CEkU/s400/610x%5B1%5D.jpg
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/images/popeandpatriarch.jpg

And you are right. They didn't like their Ultramontanism exposed either.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 07:00:09 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,590



« Reply #42 on: August 26, 2009, 07:04:31 PM »

I am sort of disappointed as you have not responded to my query. I am also disappointed that you continue with ad hominem attacks. Finally, are you implying that one must be Greek or have a terminal degree on the history of EP, Greece and/or GOA to be able to talk about the history of the GOA? In that case, please pardon MY intrusion.

One has a right to know regardless of ethnicity, language, culture, et al.  I ask for forgiveness.   angel 

It is people like me who know about the early history of the GOA except such history is moot.  It is good to know that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 or the first Orthodox Church was founded in New Orleans in 1864.  Beyond that, I find early Orthodox history to be an intellectual pursuit rather than a motive to grind an ax like "American Orthodox Unity."

The first Orthodox Church (I take it you mean in the lower 48, correct me if I am wrong) was founded around 1825.

http://commons.orthodoxwiki.org/images/thumb/3/3e/Chapel-FortRoss_1953.jpg/300px-Chapel-FortRoss_1953.jpg
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Trinity_Chapel_(Fort_Ross,_California)

You have just made our point.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 07:20:25 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,780



« Reply #43 on: August 26, 2009, 07:35:43 PM »

I am sort of disappointed as you have not responded to my query. I am also disappointed that you continue with ad hominem attacks. Finally, are you implying that one must be Greek or have a terminal degree on the history of EP, Greece and/or GOA to be able to talk about the history of the GOA? In that case, please pardon MY intrusion.

One has a right to know regardless of ethnicity, language, culture, et al.  I ask for forgiveness.   angel 

It is people like me who know about the early history of the GOA except such history is moot.  It is good to know that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 or the first Orthodox Church was founded in New Orleans in 1864.  Beyond that, I find early Orthodox history to be an intellectual pursuit rather than a motive to grind an ax like "American Orthodox Unity."

The following is a serious question as I also have struggled with the question of how much we should emphasize the past. I am usually a glass half full type of person but you know the saying about repeating past mistakes..

Why do you think that the early history of the GOA is moot? Are you saying that the GOA of today is nothing like the GOA of the 1920s?
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 07:37:25 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,590



« Reply #44 on: August 26, 2009, 08:00:31 PM »

For further examples of why he neither has -- nor wants -- interlocutors, see his bizarre response to my previous post.

Silly me, to even bother posting on this thread. Obviously the OP, who in his first post shared with us that he just "came across" such ground-breaking evidence as a newspaper article from 2003, has eminent credentials to speak to the history of the GOA; and, of course, only the innocent heart of a starry-eyed, fuzzy and snuggly six-week-old puppy when he peppers the posting of his new-found source material with sarcasm.

I am sort of disappointed as you have not responded to my query. I am also disappointed that you continue with ad hominem attacks. Finally, are you implying that one must be Greek or have a terminal degree on the history of EP, Greece and/or GOA to be able to talk about the history of the GOA? In that case, please pardon MY intrusion.

Quote
On Feb. 29th, Bps. Tikhon and Innocent consecrated a third hierarch for the North American Church. By May, Tikhon was back in San Francisco. On Mar. 25, 1905, "Greek Independence Day," Tikhon ordained a Greek, Michael Andreades to the holy priesthood.
http://www.antiochian.org/Bishops/tikhon.htm

Quote
Saint Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church is a church in Seattle, Washington. It is part of the Greek Orthodox metropolis or diocese of San Francisco,[1] within the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.[2] It is Seattle's oldest Greek Orthodox congregation.[3][4]

The Greco-Russian Church
Seattle's first Greek settlers arrived in the 1880s. By the turn of the century, several had established themselves as shopkeepers (especially in food-related industries) and at least one owned a lodging house.[9]

In 1892, the city's Greeks joined with its Russians, successfully petitioning the Russian government for the formation of the St. Spiridon parish with a bilingual priest. Greek immigrants donated the land for the original church at 817 Lakeview Avenue, which was variously known ask the Greek-Russian Church, the Greco-Russian Church, and the Greek Catholic Russian Church.  The Greco-Russian Church opened in 1895;[11] its direct descendant today is Saint Spiridon Orthodox Cathedral, of the Orthodox Church in America.[12]

In this era, Seattle saw a large influx of young Greek men, but few women and families. Mootafes et al. report that "Perhaps a dozen or so Greek women lived in Seattle before 1920, most of whom were from Leros,"[13] the place of origin of the city's first Greek immigrants.[9] Many were physical laborers, but they tended to form small businesses as soon as they had the opportunity, again often in food-related industries. Because there were few Greek women, intermarriage was common. Many were affiliated with St. Spiridon's, where the new priest, Michael G. Andreades (served 1905–1915), continued the trilingual tradition.[14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Demetrios_Greek_Orthodox_Church_(Seattle)#The_Greco-Russian_Church

And then there is Burgess' contemporary comment above, that "in all these places [he lists a number of Pan-Orthodox founding parishes, under the Russian bishops], as soon as the Greeks became numerous enough, they established their own purely Greek church communities under the jurisdiction of Constantinople or Athens."

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACF2AA.pdf
Farley, Brigit, "Russian Orthodoxy in the Pacific Northwest: The Diary of Father Michael Andreades, 1905–1906," Pacific Northwest Quarterly, 92 (Summer 2001), 127–36.

Fr. Michael Andreades came from Constantinople to San Francisco to serve the Russian bishop of North America.

Quote
Fr. Andreades transferred to the GOAA when it was founded (and the Metropolia was dismembering) and wrote to Archbishop Athenagoras that he felt he was being treated as a second class priest, because of his ordination from the Russian’s, as I recall.
http://orthodoxhistory.org/?p=623

After the 1908 Tomos, and the contiued absence of any Greek bishop, Fr. Michael Andreades, a missionary priest in the Russian mission (having studied in St. Petersburg) serving at the Diocese Cathedral in SF, reportedly went to Constantinople (he was of a Phanariot family) to request a Greek bishop for the Greek-Americans (as the Syrians had in the Russian Diocese, and the Serbs and Albanians were preparing to get) in 1912.  Wheter this was an official request or a low level one is not clear, so it is not clear if this would be part of the "diplomatic pressure" spoken of.  It does indicate, however, the Phanar knew of the Russian bishop.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Uh4VnseTNZkC&pg=PA136&dq=Michael+Andreades+Orthodox#v=onepage&q=Michael%20Andreades%20Orthodox&f=false
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags: Troll EP Bashing 
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.246 seconds with 72 queries.