OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 17, 2014, 08:05:44 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 24680 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
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,347


metron ariston


« Reply #45 on: August 26, 2009, 08:56:42 PM »

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.

They didn't like their Ultramontanism exposed either.

To the moderators & board members:

I submit that this thread should be locked, even though I had plans to respond to the good faith questions of some seeking an opportunity for dialogue (as opposed to a platform to continue a trollish series of provocations). The OP has publicly slandered Orthodox Christian hierarchs on this thread multiple times -- actions unbecoming of an Orthodox Christian and, I believe, against the policies of this board.
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 #46 on: August 26, 2009, 09:15:32 PM »

^
I for one am interested in continuing this thread. I do not believe that criticism is slander; that is, unless pensateomnia can prove it. In fact, it may be slander to accuse someone else of slander without any effort to prove the allegation. It is obvious that some folks are not happy with the criticism, as strong as it is. What I do not know is whether the discomfort is caused by excess on the part of ialmisry or an excessively thin skin on the part of the discomforted. After all, this topic is in the Free-for-All section. Finally, I see "bad mouthing" of hierarchs all over the place. Doing so against a particular individual is not indicative of disrespect for the office.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 09:18:44 PM by Second Chance » 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 #47 on: August 26, 2009, 10:14:02 PM »

Fr Michael Andreades:
Quote
Spiritually, however, the parish received the assignment of Fr. Dimitry Kamnev (1897-98) and Fr. Vladimir Alexandrov (1898-1905), missionaries who not only ministered to our congregation, but, using it as a base, tirelessly served Orthodox communities in Cle Elum, Wilkeson, Portland and in various parts of Canada, often serving the Liturgy for several thousand people at a time. It is a matter of record that the first Orthodox services in Canada were celebrated by Fr. Kamnev, then rector of St. Spiridon's.

Since a large proportion of the congregation spoke Greek as their native language, the Russian mission saw to it that most of the early rectors were proficient in that language as well as Russian and English. One of the resources open to the Russian Church was the number of priests who came from Greek-Russian families in the Crimea. Fr. Michael Andreades was one of those and ministered to St. Spiridon's from 1905 to 1916. Trilingual and comfortable in both Russian and Greek cultures, Fr. Michael was an ideal pastor for our community at the time. His talents were nearly irreplaceable, however, and it is not surprising that when this much-loved priest left in 1916, the rapidly-growing Greek community of St. Spiridon's set about making plans to form their own parish. Indeed, the number Greek-Americans in Seattle had swollen during Fr. Michael's tenure, to number around 2,000 by 1915 and were mostly young men under the age of 25. In 1918 they got the use of an Episcopal church at the corner of Yale Avenue N. and John Street, and in 1921 St. Demetrios' Church was completed on the corner of Yale and Thomas at the then enormous cost of $50,000. Old timers remember that the parting of the two congregations was an occasion for rejoicing, not sorrow, because "now there were enough Orthodox in Seattle for two churches." *

*From the website of St Spiridon http://www.saintspiridon.org/history.html

One must wonder at what rejoicing our Isa would be making had he been there.  Wink
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 10:14:29 PM by Αριστοκλής » 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 #48 on: August 26, 2009, 11:47:52 PM »

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

What point?
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

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


WWW
« Reply #49 on: August 27, 2009, 12:14:59 AM »

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?

The King of Greece no longer governs.  Therefore, the GOA history from 1922 to 1975 is moot.

Archbishop Iakovos has reposed.  Therefore, the GOA history from 1975 to 1996 is moot.

Archbishop Spyridon is watching the waves in Portugal.  Therefore, the GOA history from 1996 to 1999 is moot.

The only significant item which has occurred during Archbishop Demetrios' tenure is the elevation of the 8 Dioceses to Metropolises in 2002.

I could care less who founded the first Orthodox Church in what is now the United States.  What is more important is that we have an Orthodox faith to worship and preach to others and not who Patriarch Meletios had lunch with in San Francisco.   Roll Eyes
Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,036



« Reply #50 on: August 27, 2009, 01:04:41 AM »

SolEX01,

Your post should bring us to looking at the holiness of of our Faith, rather than arguing about what happened historically, though it is of some interest to me.  Your last line really made me laugh.  You don't care who Patriarch Meletios had lunch with in SF?
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

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


WWW
« Reply #51 on: August 27, 2009, 01:25:09 AM »

SolEX01,

Your post should bring us to looking at the holiness of of our Faith, rather than arguing about what happened historically, though it is of some interest to me.  Your last line really made me laugh.  You don't care who Patriarch Meletios had lunch with in SF?

Who Pat. Meletios had lunch with in SF in 1921 has no meaning.   Smiley
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 #52 on: August 27, 2009, 01:51:21 AM »

Fr Michael Andreades:
Quote
Spiritually, however, the parish received the assignment of Fr. Dimitry Kamnev (1897-98) and Fr. Vladimir Alexandrov (1898-1905), missionaries who not only ministered to our congregation, but, using it as a base, tirelessly served Orthodox communities in Cle Elum, Wilkeson, Portland and in various parts of Canada, often serving the Liturgy for several thousand people at a time. It is a matter of record that the first Orthodox services in Canada were celebrated by Fr. Kamnev, then rector of St. Spiridon's.

Since a large proportion of the congregation spoke Greek as their native language, the Russian mission saw to it that most of the early rectors were proficient in that language as well as Russian and English. One of the resources open to the Russian Church was the number of priests who came from Greek-Russian families in the Crimea. Fr. Michael Andreades was one of those and ministered to St. Spiridon's from 1905 to 1916. Trilingual and comfortable in both Russian and Greek cultures, Fr. Michael was an ideal pastor for our community at the time. His talents were nearly irreplaceable, however, and it is not surprising that when this much-loved priest left in 1916, the rapidly-growing Greek community of St. Spiridon's set about making plans to form their own parish. Indeed, the number Greek-Americans in Seattle had swollen during Fr. Michael's tenure, to number around 2,000 by 1915 and were mostly young men under the age of 25. In 1918 they got the use of an Episcopal church at the corner of Yale Avenue N. and John Street, and in 1921 St. Demetrios' Church was completed on the corner of Yale and Thomas at the then enormous cost of $50,000. Old timers remember that the parting of the two congregations was an occasion for rejoicing, not sorrow, because "now there were enough Orthodox in Seattle for two churches." *

*From the website of St Spiridon http://www.saintspiridon.org/history.html

One must wonder at what rejoicing our Isa would be making had he been there.  Wink


If Fr. Andreas had successed in obtaining a Greek bishop, I would have thrown rose petals in his holiness' path as he walked off the ship
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 #53 on: August 27, 2009, 03:21:34 AM »

If Fr. Andreas had successed in obtaining a Greek bishop, I would have thrown rose petals in his holiness' path as he walked off the ship

So, Fr. Michael Andreades left St. Spiridon for St Demetrios and had...no bishop, or are you just obsessed with where his bishop was seated?
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 #54 on: August 27, 2009, 04:11:52 AM »

If Fr. Andreas had successed in obtaining a Greek bishop, I would have thrown rose petals in his holiness' path as he walked off the ship

So, Fr. Michael Andreades left St. Spiridon for St Demetrios and had...no bishop, or are you just obsessed with where his bishop was seated?

...on his canonical cathedra. Then canons have a dim view of him sitting anywhere  else.

Priests without a canonical and valid bishop do not exist.  Not in Orthodoxy at least. No bishop, no antimens, no priest, no DL, no parish.

Btw, Fr. Andreades did not leave St. Spiridon for St. Demetrios: all accounts I've seen state that he left the RM for the GOANSA only after the Bolshevik Revolution.  If you know otherwise, please post.

I tried a google search for GOA and Fr. Andreades, but it yielded nothing.  Nothing. Here a pioneer of Greek Orthodox clergy on this continent, and GOA has nothing to say.

I do:SHAME!
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 #55 on: August 27, 2009, 04:17:10 AM »

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?

The King of Greece no longer governs.  Therefore, the GOA history from 1922 to 1975 is moot.

Archbishop Iakovos has reposed.  Therefore, the GOA history from 1975 to 1996 is moot.

Archbishop Spyridon is watching the waves in Portugal.  Therefore, the GOA history from 1996 to 1999 is moot.

The only significant item which has occurred during Archbishop Demetrios' tenure is the elevation of the 8 Dioceses to Metropolises in 2002.

I could care less who founded the first Orthodox Church in what is now the United States.  What is more important is that we have an Orthodox faith to worship and preach to others and not who Patriarch Meletios had lunch with in San Francisco.   Roll Eyes

Constantinople fell and 1453 and got its named changed to Istanbul in 1930.  Are you going to say New Rome is moot?

Preach what to others? Multiple phelytist, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Churches?
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 #56 on: August 27, 2009, 04:20:50 AM »

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

What point?

You can go on the GOA site and look in vain to see any reference to non-Greek Orthodox.  As I posted up above, the full fledged mission of St. Herman to the full fledged hiearchy across the length and bredth of the continent is totally ignored, but much is made of a colony of Greeks who submitted to the Vatican and disappeared without a trace.
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 #57 on: August 27, 2009, 04:22:52 AM »

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.

They didn't like their Ultramontanism exposed either.

To the moderators & board members:

I submit that this thread should be locked, even though I had plans to respond to the good faith questions of some seeking an opportunity for dialogue (as opposed to a platform to continue a trollish series of provocations). The OP has publicly slandered Orthodox Christian hierarchs on this thread multiple times -- actions unbecoming of an Orthodox Christian and, I believe, against the policies of this board.

Which Orthodox Christian hiearchs have I slandered?
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 #58 on: August 27, 2009, 08:07:30 AM »

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?

The King of Greece no longer governs.  Therefore, the GOA history from 1922 to 1975 is moot.

Archbishop Iakovos has reposed.  Therefore, the GOA history from 1975 to 1996 is moot.

Archbishop Spyridon is watching the waves in Portugal.  Therefore, the GOA history from 1996 to 1999 is moot.

The only significant item which has occurred during Archbishop Demetrios' tenure is the elevation of the 8 Dioceses to Metropolises in 2002.

I could care less who founded the first Orthodox Church in what is now the United States.  What is more important is that we have an Orthodox faith to worship and preach to others and not who Patriarch Meletios had lunch with in San Francisco.   Roll Eyes

So, are you intimating that the overall attitudes and policies of the GOA and the EP have changed so dramatically that it is futile to look back? I will give one example. Except for one prominent hierarch (+ Patriarch Athenagoras), the hierarch's of the EP (therefore the GOA) had continued the pattern of disdain toward Bulgarians, whether in the Exarchate in Istanbul, or in Macedonia (Northern Aegean and Pirin parts). I will not give examples on this forum but please PM me if you wish further details. This carried over to the United States, where it was common during public events (such as Clergy Association meetings) for the GOA priest to make a point of snubbing the Bulgarian priest who pastored the local Macedono-Bulgarian Church. Now, except the matter of the Macedonia (Republic and Church), the relations with Bulgarians are better, but Greece still refuses to acknowledge that Bulgarians are still living in its province of Macedonia--she calls them Slavophone Greeks. The theme here is the emphasis on Greekness or Hellenism, both religious and secular, at times approaching hubris. Has this changed so dramatically over the course of the past 80+ years?
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 08:08:35 AM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #59 on: August 27, 2009, 10:28:03 AM »

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.

They didn't like their Ultramontanism exposed either.

To the moderators & board members:

I submit that this thread should be locked, even though I had plans to respond to the good faith questions of some seeking an opportunity for dialogue (as opposed to a platform to continue a trollish series of provocations). The OP has publicly slandered Orthodox Christian hierarchs on this thread multiple times -- actions unbecoming of an Orthodox Christian and, I believe, against the policies of this board.


In the future, per forum rules, please address all moderation requests via the "Report to moderator" button or via PM to any of the mods.   

In response to your request, this thread will not be locked at this time.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 10:30:42 AM by Schultz » 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 #60 on: August 27, 2009, 10:28:42 AM »

If Fr. Andreas had successed in obtaining a Greek bishop, I would have thrown rose petals in his holiness' path as he walked off the ship

So, Fr. Michael Andreades left St. Spiridon for St Demetrios and had...no bishop, or are you just obsessed with where his bishop was seated?

Quote
From the Cathedral property manager,
Hegoumen Sebastian
A Most Humble Report
It is my duty to report to your Grace that the Greek Community in San Francisco has begun building a
new church in San Francisco on a plot of land purchased south of Market Street. They ordered a priest
by mail for themselves who arrived and was present today at Divine Liturgy at the Cathedral church (he
was standing in the altar). This priest (married) in the rank of sakellarios, Father Constantine . .
.[Tsapralis, or Chaprales] has his credentials from his Bishop, Ambrose of the Diocese of Salaris
[probably, Fr. Sebastian is mistaken, it could be "Salamis"] (in the Kingdom of Greece), in the
jurisdiction of the Holy Synod in Athens. He has a Holy Antimension that was given to him (he says) to
celebrate Liturgy in the United States of North America. He was here with two Orthodox Greeks
known to me.
The lowest servant of your Grace,
Hegoumen Sebastian
San Francisco, November 16, 1903.


May God grant them all success.
Dec. 12, 1903,
Bp. Tikhon18
http://www.transfigcathedral.org/faith/corner/Dabovich.pdf

Quote
Holy Trinity is the oldest Greek Orthodox church west of Chicago, the oldest church within the San Francisco Metropolis, and the eighth oldest church within the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. Our history spans over 100 years and is linked to the history of our sister parish Annunciation Cathedral and the history of San Francisco. Divine Liturgy was first celebrated on Christmas Day, 1903. We were chartered in the state of California, March, 1904.
http://holytrinitysf.org/history_intro.html

But of course not the oldest Orthodox Church in San Francisco, although it predates the Greek Cathedral there. That Cathedral's origins are here:

Quote
Let us tell you a little bit about the history of the Annunciation Cathedral community. St. Sophia, precursor to the Annunciation Cathedral, came into being June 1921, when the parishioners of the Holy Trinity Church, sympathetic to Greek Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos, established a second Greek Orthodox community in San Francisco. Land was acquired at Hayes and Pierce streets, all of the lots facing Pierce street from Hayes to Fell streets, for the purpose of building a Cathedral and an adjoining school and orphanage. Ground was broken June 1921, with a ceremony where His Eminence Metropolitan Meletios Metaxakis, Archbishop of Athens, laid the cornerstone of the cathedral.
http://www.annunciation.org/history.html

They left out the "deposed" part of Arb. Meletios' title.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 10:30:14 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
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #61 on: August 27, 2009, 10:47:53 AM »

^
I for one am interested in continuing this thread. I do not believe that criticism is slander; that is, unless pensateomnia can prove it. In fact, it may be slander to accuse someone else of slander without any effort to prove the allegation. It is obvious that some folks are not happy with the criticism, as strong as it is. What I do not know is whether the discomfort is caused by excess on the part of ialmisry or an excessively thin skin on the part of the discomforted. After all, this topic is in the Free-for-All section. Finally, I see "bad mouthing" of hierarchs all over the place. Doing so against a particular individual is not indicative of disrespect for the office.


I second that.

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
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 #62 on: August 27, 2009, 11:04:09 AM »

They left out the "deposed" part of Arb. Meletios' title.

I just came across this.  It seems that Met. Meletios wasn't validly EP yet either in 1921:
ANGORA REJECTS MELETIOS.; Turkish Nationalist Government Declares Patriarch's Election Void.
December 24, 1921
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=980DE1D71539E133A25757C2A9649D946095D6CF

In other words, whether you accept Tome 1908 or the present day interpretation of canon 28 by the EP, Met. Meletios had no authority whatsoever to do anything here, being outside of his see in Cyprus (odd, given the circumstances of the promulgation of canon 8 of Ephesus).
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 11:06:55 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 #63 on: August 27, 2009, 11:23:34 AM »

Quote
They left out the "deposed" part of Arb. Meletios' title.
You know, Isa, I am beginning to change my thinking on Patriarch Melotios. I, as most others here, have long conjured up images of Darth Vader at his mention in any topic. He's always a sure-fire epithet and end-of-argument reference. But for me - no more. About 5 years ago I had an email exchange with Fr John Behr of SVOTS on another point of Church history and this EP came up somehow. Upshot was, we agreed that it was time to re-examine this bishop in the light of his time period with the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire and its effect on the Church. He basically challenged me to do that study. However, I do not aspire to pseudo-history and thus far have avoided the task.
Early this morning in researching Fr. Michael Andreades I was surprised to read of St. Tikhon's heavy involvement in the Anglican-Orthodox Union. Point: One never reads a PEEP about this or any negatives concerning this venerated saint. But just bring up Pat. Meletios and a guaranteed Internet anathema has been made.

Despite garnering some EP-bashing fans here (none a surprise), I think you have a really serious problem with a jihad that has reached personally a destructive level. I am very fond of you (you know that). Not only are you a fellow Orthodox, but we both share the distasteful experience of spending some time in the pokey for contempt of court and I feel somewhat sympathetic to your anger in general as a consequence. But you take 'contempt' to another level. You need professional help. We've two priests here as administrators or ozgeorge if you prefer a clinical approach.
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 #64 on: August 27, 2009, 01:47:53 PM »

Constantinople fell and 1453 and got its named changed to Istanbul in 1930.  Are you going to say New Rome is moot?

New Rome remains in the EP's title which His All Holiness has had for about 15+ Centuries.  The title is there; the imperial city is moot.  Turkish Postal Law only made the name change a formality - Istanbul is derived from the Greek for "in the city."

Preach what to others? Multiple phelytist, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Churches?

Is that for you to decide?  You can take it, ignore it or leave it.

Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

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


WWW
« Reply #65 on: August 27, 2009, 02:05:40 PM »

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

What point?

You can go on the GOA site and look in vain to see any reference to non-Greek Orthodox. 

Here's an analogy.  If you put blinders on a horse, will the horse see anything else besides what is in front of him?  Same for these Hierarchs who came from Ottoman realms.  Don't think for one moment that these Hierarchs were ignorant of the presence of other ethnic Orthodox for your own historical sources confirm what I've said.

Since your own historical research established that Greek Catholics settled in Florida at the height of Ottoman rule over "the roman lands" for lack of a better term, what Patriarch Meletios did was rectify the errors of the past, now enshrined in the St. Photios Museum which is dedicated ... to Hellenism, and bring Byzantine/Hellenistic Greek Orthodoxy to the Americas.  Dropping the first three bolded terms, the GOA is still an Orthodox Christian faith which has been "stuck" in between USA, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, EU, UN, Old Calendarist Churches from Greece, et al. from the day one of Her Establishment.  Despite these obstacles, which can be overlooked including moot histories and the like, like any other Orthodox Church, the GOA calls all Orthodox home.

As I posted up above, the full fledged mission of St. Herman to the full fledged hiearchy across the length and bredth of the continent is totally ignored, but much is made of a colony of Greeks who submitted to the Vatican and disappeared without a trace.

The lessons of the past were learned. Undecided
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 #66 on: August 27, 2009, 02:09:55 PM »

Quote
They left out the "deposed" part of Arb. Meletios' title.
You know, Isa, I am beginning to change my thinking on Patriarch Melotios. I, as most others here, have long conjured up images of Darth Vader at his mention in any topic. He's always a sure-fire epithet and end-of-argument reference. But for me - no more. About 5 years ago I had an email exchange with Fr John Behr of SVOTS on another point of Church history and this EP came up somehow. Upshot was, we agreed that it was time to re-examine this bishop in the light of his time period with the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire and its effect on the Church. He basically challenged me to do that study. However, I do not aspire to pseudo-history and thus far have avoided the task.
Early this morning in researching Fr. Michael Andreades I was surprised to read of St. Tikhon's heavy involvement in the Anglican-Orthodox Union. Point: One never reads a PEEP about this or any negatives concerning this venerated saint. But just bring up Pat. Meletios and a guaranteed Internet anathema has been made.

Oh, its more than an internet anathema: When Venizelos fell from power in the general election, on Nov. 17, 1920 Meletios was informed that the deposition of his predecessor was unconstitutional and invalid. Meletios resigned amid letters of protest. On Dec. 3, 1920 the hierarchy of the CoG, for the first time in its history, convened and condemned the deposition of Meletios’ predecessor and other acts as “anticanonical, invalid and nonexistent.” Archb. Theocletus was restored.
http://books.google.com/books?id=KQEH4vvG0KwC&pg=PA360&dq=meletios+metaxakis#v=onepage&q=meletios%20metaxakis&f=false
(Eleftherios Venizelos: The Trials of Statesmanship By Paschalis Kitromilides)

Meletios' exarch, Bp. Alexander, was recalled to Greece by they Holy Synod of Greece. When he refused to return he was defrocked, and the Synod's Exarch, Met. Germanos arrived in America in June 1921 (Met. Meletios fled to SF). When Met. Meletios was elected EP, the Turkish government in concert with the Greek Government refused to reconize him, and induced the other Greek controlled Churches (Alexandria, Jeruasalem, Cyprus)  (see the above work) to refuse recognition. Only the disaster in Asia Minor, and the resulting return of the Venizelists to power in the Plastiras Revolution of Sept. 11, 1922 induced the Greek world to recognize Meletios as EP.  By that time, however, Turkey was regaining control of its sovereignty over Constantinople, and were again in a position to enforce holding of his election as void.
Quote
ANGORA REJECTS MELETIOS.; Turkish Nationalist Government Declares Patriarch's Election Void.
December 24, 1921
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=980DE1D71539E133A25757C2A9649D946095D6CF

The CoG in 1921 convened a synod to try Met. Meletios for usurping the throne of Athens, formenting schism in America and vacated his election as AoA as "illegal, null and void" and condemned him to confinement to a monastery in Zanta. In addition, it found, "on the basis of a message from a bishop in America...declared that the said Meletios had been guilty of schism and unlawful communion with heretics (meaning by this the American Episcopal Church)."
http://books.google.com/books?id=oslEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=Meletios+void&source=bl&ots=jVSBMgG0Nx&sig=Sj3fpctroev4D5RO_AmwOkMMKCc&hl=en&ei=daGWSpvuBpKEtgfkrsm-Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=Meletios%20void&f=false
The Greeks in America By J. P. Xenides
http://books.google.com/books?id=VPwaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=Meletios+void&source=bl&ots=yrzKI1kG7u&sig=nxCU7Gzg5SOQsrtm7zjNW43pMpk&hl=en&ei=TsWWSpDnKZXwMdCusIkD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=Meletios%20void&f=false
Our world, Volume 2 edited by Herbert Sherman Houston (1922)

(btw, the last remarks "his enlightened and progressive leadership will mean every great gain for the church, if he is allowed to continue to grace the Patriarchal Throne."  Take it for what it's worth).

The CoG was and is an autocephalous Church, and had and has the power to discipline its members. I do not know of an action by the CoG to reverse the invalidity of his tenure as Archbishop.  Do you?

Quote
Despite garnering some EP-bashing fans here (none a surprise), I think you have a really serious problem with a jihad that has reached personally a destructive level. I am very fond of you (you know that).

Yes, I do. And it is returned, despite a chasm in opinion.


Quote
Not only are you a fellow Orthodox, but we both share the distasteful experience of spending some time in the pokey for contempt of court and I feel somewhat sympathetic to your anger in general as a consequence.

No, my temperment hasn't changed.  Impassioned? Yes: better to end in a pile of ashes rather than a pile of dust.


Quote
But you take 'contempt' to another level. You need professional help. We've two priests here as administrators

No, thanks for your concern and nothing against Fr. Anastasios and Fr. Cleaveland (real name?) and other fine members of the clergy here (that includes you Fr. Ambrose), Fr. Patrick Reardon (not known for being a shrinking violet) my priest can handle me.



Quote
or ozgeorge if you prefer a clinical approach.

LOL.  Check the unmoderated posts on that idea.

Bp. John of Albania (his see escapes me) converted from a Muslim family during communism.  He got religious articles etc. from his job: he worked in a psych ward, where the Communist State sentenced dissedents (like those who continued to believe in God).

I've seen several psychiatrists and psychologists, just to make sure. The diagnosis has always been the same:under a lot of pressure, but fine.  Taking a strong position, especially on an vital issue, and defending it vigorously is not a disease under the DVM-IV (so I guess I'm with ozgeorge's friends the homosexual "normals").
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
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

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


WWW
« Reply #67 on: August 27, 2009, 02:28:40 PM »

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?

The King of Greece no longer governs.  Therefore, the GOA history from 1922 to 1975 is moot.

Archbishop Iakovos has reposed.  Therefore, the GOA history from 1975 to 1996 is moot.

Archbishop Spyridon is watching the waves in Portugal.  Therefore, the GOA history from 1996 to 1999 is moot.

The only significant item which has occurred during Archbishop Demetrios' tenure is the elevation of the 8 Dioceses to Metropolises in 2002.

I could care less who founded the first Orthodox Church in what is now the United States.  What is more important is that we have an Orthodox faith to worship and preach to others and not who Patriarch Meletios had lunch with in San Francisco.   Roll Eyes

So, are you intimating that the overall attitudes and policies of the GOA and the EP have changed so dramatically that it is futile to look back?

Hmmm, where have I mentioned futility?  Moot means, "a matter has been deprived of practical significance or rendered purely academic."  The history of the GOA from 1922 to 1999 has no practical significance and has become purely academic.

The attitudes and policies of the GOA and EP have no bearing on the praxis of the Orthodox Faith especially when they are opposed to each other.

I will give one example. Except for one prominent hierarch (+ Patriarch Athenagoras), the hierarch's of the EP (therefore the GOA) had continued the pattern of disdain toward Bulgarians, whether in the Exarchate in Istanbul, or in Macedonia (Northern Aegean and Pirin parts). I will not give examples on this forum but please PM me if you wish further details. This carried over to the United States, where it was common during public events (such as Clergy Association meetings) for the GOA priest to make a point of snubbing the Bulgarian priest who pastored the local Macedono-Bulgarian Church.


There is one of many examples of what I said before the quoted block.   Smiley

Now, except the matter of the Macedonia (Republic and Church), the relations with Bulgarians are better, but Greece still refuses to acknowledge that Bulgarians are still living in its province of Macedonia--she calls them Slavophone Greeks. The theme here is the emphasis on Greekness or Hellenism, both religious and secular, at times approaching hubris. Has this changed so dramatically over the course of the past 80+ years?

I have expounded on the bolded text in the quote below.

Hellenism paved the way for the spread of Orthodox Christianity throughout the Roman world via the Greek language.  That's the only credit Hellenism deserves.

Unless the USA is an extension of the Roman World, Hellenism should have ended in 1922.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #68 on: August 27, 2009, 04:07:44 PM »

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?

The King of Greece no longer governs.  Therefore, the GOA history from 1922 to 1975 is moot.

Archbishop Iakovos has reposed.  Therefore, the GOA history from 1975 to 1996 is moot.

Archbishop Spyridon is watching the waves in Portugal.  Therefore, the GOA history from 1996 to 1999 is moot.

The only significant item which has occurred during Archbishop Demetrios' tenure is the elevation of the 8 Dioceses to Metropolises in 2002.

I could care less who founded the first Orthodox Church in what is now the United States.  What is more important is that we have an Orthodox faith to worship and preach to others and not who Patriarch Meletios had lunch with in San Francisco.   Roll Eyes

So, are you intimating that the overall attitudes and policies of the GOA and the EP have changed so dramatically that it is futile to look back?

Hmmm, where have I mentioned futility?  Moot means, "a matter has been deprived of practical significance or rendered purely academic."  The history of the GOA from 1922 to 1999 has no practical significance and has become purely academic.

The attitudes and policies of the GOA and EP have no bearing on the praxis of the Orthodox Faith especially when they are opposed to each other.

I will give one example. Except for one prominent hierarch (+ Patriarch Athenagoras), the hierarch's of the EP (therefore the GOA) had continued the pattern of disdain toward Bulgarians, whether in the Exarchate in Istanbul, or in Macedonia (Northern Aegean and Pirin parts). I will not give examples on this forum but please PM me if you wish further details. This carried over to the United States, where it was common during public events (such as Clergy Association meetings) for the GOA priest to make a point of snubbing the Bulgarian priest who pastored the local Macedono-Bulgarian Church.


There is one of many examples of what I said before the quoted block.   Smiley

Now, except the matter of the Macedonia (Republic and Church), the relations with Bulgarians are better, but Greece still refuses to acknowledge that Bulgarians are still living in its province of Macedonia--she calls them Slavophone Greeks. The theme here is the emphasis on Greekness or Hellenism, both religious and secular, at times approaching hubris. Has this changed so dramatically over the course of the past 80+ years?

I have expounded on the bolded text in the quote below.

Hellenism paved the way for the spread of Orthodox Christianity throughout the Roman world via the Greek language.  That's the only credit Hellenism deserves.

Unless the USA is an extension of the Roman World, Hellenism should have ended in 1922.

Well, this is very encouraging: You and I seem to agree on the need to overcome the old Greek claims of superiority and dominance. Two final questions:

1. How prevalent do you think this view is in the EP and GOA and when do you think the vestiges of the old attitudes will disappear?

2. Given the historical fact that the see (EP) that led the condemnation of phyletism was also the most guilty of it (in the past), are you saying that Constantinople, and by extension the GOA, believe in their interpretation of Canon 28 solely because it is untainted with what I distilled to "Greek claims of superiority and dominance"?

Forgive me for sounding so skeptical. I hope that you will give allowances to somebody from a people and church has been so wronged in the past by Greeks in general, and the Greek Orthodox clergy in particular.
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 #69 on: August 27, 2009, 04:55:50 PM »

Quote
They left out the "deposed" part of Arb. Meletios' title.
You know, Isa, I am beginning to change my thinking on Patriarch Melotios. I, as most others here, have long conjured up images of Darth Vader at his mention in any topic. He's always a sure-fire epithet and end-of-argument reference. But for me - no more. About 5 years ago I had an email exchange with Fr John Behr of SVOTS on another point of Church history and this EP came up somehow. Upshot was, we agreed that it was time to re-examine this bishop in the light of his time period with the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire and its effect on the Church. He basically challenged me to do that study. However, I do not aspire to pseudo-history and thus far have avoided the task.
Early this morning in researching Fr. Michael Andreades I was surprised to read of St. Tikhon's heavy involvement in the Anglican-Orthodox Union. Point: One never reads a PEEP about this or any negatives concerning this venerated saint. But just bring up Pat. Meletios and a guaranteed Internet anathema has been made.

Was St. Tikhon this involved?:
Quote
The Episcopal and Greek Churches

Report of an Unofficial Conference on Unity
Between Members of the Episcopal Church in America and
His Grace, Meletios Metaxakis, Metropolitan of Athens,
And His Advisers.

October 26, 1918.

New York: Department of Missions, 1920

Evdokim, the last Archbishop sent to America by the Holy Governing Synod of Russia in the year 1915, brought with him instructions that he should work for a closer understanding with the Episcopal Church in America. As a result, a series of conferences were held in the Spring of 1916. At these conferences the question of Anglican Orders, the Apostolical Canons and the Seventh Oecumenical Council were discussed. The Russians were willing to accept the conclusions of Professor Sokoloff, as set forth in his thesis for the degree of Doctor of Divinity, approved by the Holy Governing Synod of Russia. In this thesis he proved the historical continuity of Anglican Orders, and the intention to conform to the practice of the ancient Church. He expressed some suspicion concerning the belief of part of the Anglican Church in the nature of the sacraments, but maintained that this could not be of sufficient magnitude to prevent the free operation of the Holy Spirit. The Russian members of the conference, while accepting this conclusion, pointed out that further steps toward inter-communion could only be made by an oecumenical council. The following is quoted from the above-mentioned publication...

THE CONFERENCE

BY common agreement, representatives of the Greek Orthodox Church and delegates from the American Branch of the Anglican and Eastern Association and of the Christian Unity Foundation of the Episcopal Church, met in the Bible Room of the Library of the General Theological Seminary, Saturday, October 26, 1918, at ten o'clock. There were present as representing the Greek Orthodox Church: His Grace, the Most Reverend Meletios Metaxakis, Metropolitan of Greece; the Very Reverend Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, D.D., Professor of the University of Athens and Director of the Theological Seminary "Rizarios"; Hamilcar Alivisatos, D.D., Director of the Ecclesiastical Department of the Ministry of Religion and Education, Athens, and Mr. Tsolainos, who acted as interpreter....

"Will His Grace kindly state what is his view concerning the Validity of Anglican Orders?"

The Metropolitan: "I am greatly moved indeed, and it is with feelings of great emotion that I come to this conference around the table with such learned theologians of the Episcopal Church. Because it is the first time I have been given the opportunity to express, not only my personal desire, but the desire of my Church, that we may all be one. I understand that this conference is unofficial. Neither our Episcopal brethren, nor the Orthodox, officially represent their Churches. The fact, however, that we have come together in the spirit of prayer and love to discuss these questions, is a clear and eloquent proof that we are on the desired road to unity. I would wish, that in discussing these questions of ecclesiastical importance in the presence of such theological experts, that I were as well equipped for the undertaking as you are. Unfortunately, however, from the day that I graduated from the Theological Seminary at Jerusalem, I have been absorbed in the great question of the day, which has been the salvation of Christians from the sword of the invader of the Orient....

Metropolitan: "I consider this as of first importance. Do the canonically consecrated bishops of the Church represent an official body whose decision would be infallible if expressed in a general council? I understand that you accept this point."

Bishop Kinsman: "If a general council were called, who would be the official representatives? Would they be of the East only, without the West?"

Metropolitan: "Not without the West."

Further: "Would the members of the Episcopal Church accept the decisions of such council? They would be accepted by our Church."

Bishop Kinsman: "There is no question of our acceptance."
http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/newyork1918.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
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

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


WWW
« Reply #70 on: August 27, 2009, 07:43:58 PM »

Well, this is very encouraging: You and I seem to agree on the need to overcome the old Greek claims of superiority and dominance. Two final questions:

When I was in the 6th grade, I used to tell my teacher that I knew everything.  For a day or two, he permitted me to be smug.  On the third day, he asked me a question I didn't know the answer to.  There was my humility.  In the 7th Grade, I tried the same exact stunt with the same exact results.  Since then, I've worked hard to be humble....

1. How prevalent do you think this view is in the EP and GOA and when do you think the vestiges of the old attitudes will disappear?

Given the given vignette above, the EP and GOA would have to be severely humbled. 

2. Given the historical fact that the see (EP) that led the condemnation of phyletism was also the most guilty of it (in the past), are you saying that Constantinople, and by extension the GOA, believe in their interpretation of Canon 28 solely because it is untainted with what I distilled to "Greek claims of superiority and dominance"?

Canon 28 applies only if the Americas were unilaterally declared "barbarian lands."  The Byzantines were in decline for 4 Centuries before 1453 and they had nothing but the city walls of Constantinople at the end.

Forgive me for sounding so skeptical. I hope that you will give allowances to somebody from a people and church has been so wronged in the past by Greeks in general, and the Greek Orthodox clergy in particular.

Education is very precious.  Lack of education can be a severe detriment. 

God Bless You!
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 #71 on: August 27, 2009, 11:20:18 PM »

No, thanks for your concern and nothing against Fr. Anastasios and Fr. Cleaveland (real name?) and other fine members of the clergy here (that includes you Fr. Ambrose), Fr. Patrick Reardon (not known for being a shrinking violet) my priest can handle me.

Thank you for your kind elevation, but I must point out that I'm only a dad, not a Father yet. Smiley  Methinks he was referring to Fr. Chris.

I am impressed that you spelled Cleveland the way Moses (its namesake) did, not the way that it is legally incorporated.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 11:21:07 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.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #72 on: August 27, 2009, 11:46:19 PM »

Quote
Was St. Tikhon this involved?:......

Probably not. That reads more like St. Raphael's involvement. But, you know Isa, it doesn't matter. The Anglicans of 80 years ago were a different church then and not the easy target for derision it is today.  This doesn't matter moreover except as further indication that your obsession is getting worse and a squandering of your God-given talents. A shame, or worse.
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 #73 on: August 28, 2009, 12:40:43 AM »

Quote
Was St. Tikhon this involved?:......

Probably not. That reads more like St. Raphael's involvement. But, you know Isa, it doesn't matter. The Anglicans of 80 years ago were a different church then and not the easy target for derision it is today.  This doesn't matter moreover except as further indication that your obsession is getting worse and a squandering of your God-given talents. A shame, or worse.


The Synod of the CoG 80 years ago were the same Church.  I've posted their verdict on the matter.

Btw, the Episcopal report (1913) I've posted above shows that St. Raphael has started to stop economia and applying strictness.
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 #74 on: August 28, 2009, 09:38:55 AM »

Quote
Was St. Tikhon this involved?:......

Probably not. That reads more like St. Raphael's involvement. But, you know Isa, it doesn't matter. The Anglicans of 80 years ago were a different church then and not the easy target for derision it is today.  This doesn't matter moreover except as further indication that your obsession is getting worse and a squandering of your God-given talents. A shame, or worse.


The Synod of the CoG 80 years ago were the same Church.  I've posted their verdict on the matter.
Of course, I know this and...so what?
Quote
Btw, the Episcopal report (1913) I've posted above shows that St. Raphael has started to stop economia and applying strictness.

as Vice-president of the Anglican-Orthodox Union.
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 #75 on: August 28, 2009, 11:01:02 AM »

Quote
Was St. Tikhon this involved?:......

Probably not. That reads more like St. Raphael's involvement. But, you know Isa, it doesn't matter. The Anglicans of 80 years ago were a different church then and not the easy target for derision it is today.  This doesn't matter moreover except as further indication that your obsession is getting worse and a squandering of your God-given talents. A shame, or worse.


The Synod of the CoG 80 years ago were the same Church.  I've posted their verdict on the matter.
Of course, I know this and...so what?
Quote
Btw, the Episcopal report (1913) I've posted above shows that St. Raphael has started to stop economia and applying strictness.

as Vice-president of the Anglican-Orthodox Union.

Quote
As was their usual custom with all prelates and clergy of other bodies, the Episcopalian bishops urged Bishop Raphael to recognize the validity of their Orders and to permit his people to receive sacramental ministrations from the Episcopal Church. It was pointed out to Raphael that many of the isolated and widely scattered Orthodox Christians in North America had no easy access to Orthodox priests (and hence no easy access to the sacraments), but could be easily reached and ministered to by Episcopalian clergymen. They tried to persuade Raphael that they were true priests - Orthodox in their doctrine and belief, though separated in organization. Unconvinced by their arguments, Raphael cautioned the Orthodox Syrians not to be taken in by such arguments, and that no unity of faith or practice existed between the Orthodox Church and the Protestant Episcopal Churches.

On October 14, 1909, during the annual meeting of the American Branch of "The Anglican and Eastern Churches Union" held at Grace Episcopal Church in Newark, New Jersey, the Episcopalian bishops pressed Bishop Raphael to translate The Book of Common Prayer into Arabic and to encourage the Orthodox Syrian faithful who were without the ministrations of a local Orthodox priest to attend Episcopal churches. Bishop Raphael refused, for many theological reasons, saying: "The spiritual communion between the Orthodox Church and the Episcopal Church does not exist yet; all we have accomplished is friendly relations." He suggested that if the Episcopalians were truly interested in being of help to his flock, that they should keep Orthodox service books in their churches which could be used by the Orthodox Syrians when they might visit an Episcopalian church.

Raphael continued to be greatly concerned by the dilemma which faced members of his flock who lived in areas at great distances from Orthodox parishes. Their dying went to their graves without confession and communion and with no priest to conduct a funeral. Young couples needed their marriages blessed in a church and their children baptized. Therefore in June of 1910 Bishop Raphael took a bold pastoral step and granted permission for his people in these circumstances of emergency and urgency to receive ministrations from an Episcopalian clergyman, when no Orthodox priest was available, and only from an Episcopalian clergyman. He believed that the Episcopal Church considered the Orthodox Church to be the oldest Church and that only the Orthodox Church preserved the truth of the Christian Faith without changes. He also had great love for them and his personal desire to be tolerant toward them in issues and matters that did not contradict the canons of the Orthodox Church and its apostolic teaching and doctrine, hoping by this he would help to realize the unity between the two Churches.

Writing to the Episcopalian bishops, Raphael listed the pastoral rules which he stipulated were to be observed by any Episcopalian clergyman who might be called to minister to his people in such extreme circumstances, concerning marriages, divorces, baptisms (and not chrismation), confessions and communions for the dying, recommending that if an Orthodox Service Book can be produced, that the sacrament and rites be performed as set forth in that book.

Bishop Raphael's letter reached the mother Church of England. The secretary of "The Anglican and Eastern Churches Union," the Reverend Fynes Clinton, wrote to Raphael on August 6, 1910, commending his step and stating that "the House of Bishops, in their last meeting in Lambeth, England, decided that there is no canonical preventive which prevents the Anglican clergy from baptizing and chrismating the Orthodox children," and that such a step is "of greatest importance in the interest of approaching the day when we, the Anglicans, will be given the same right when we travel in the Orthodox countries, ... your step, which may be today difficult for some Orthodox bishops to undertake and for some to accept will positively effect the future of the relations between the two Churches. Therefore, I have sent your letter to be published in our Anglican newsletters, and to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to other bishops of the Anglican Church."

Being uncomfortable with the response of the Anglicans, Bishop Raphael wrote Clinton, in August 19, 1910, an explanatory letter stating that "I trust that no doubtful interpretation has been given to that letter. I tried to be both very Christian and frank. In no way must it be interpreted as admitting anything which the Orthodox Church does not admit or in contradicting what it does not deny." And "I, as head of the Syrian Mission in North America, find my people scattered far and near. Of all Christian bodies they and I find the Protestant Episcopal Church most respectful and kind toward me, as their Bishop, and to them. That Church has extended a Christian hand. I have gone as far as I can conscientiously toward that Church as part of the great and beloved Anglican Communion. Whereinsoever my people have need of ministrations of necessity, there being no Orthodox priests, I have preferred the Priesthood of the Anglican Church to minister to them, rather than that of any other. No farther I can go. All other matters I must leave in the hands of God and the rightful authorities of the Holy Orthodox Church throughout the world. I will stand with them in their final decision".

Being a vice-president on the Eastern Orthodox Catholic side of the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches Union and having issued on Protestant Episcopal solicitation such a permission to his people, Bishop Raphael set himself to observe most closely the resulting acts, following upon his permissory letter and to study most carefully the Protestant Episcopal Church and the Anglican teaching in the hope that the Anglicans might really be capable of actually becoming Orthodox. But the more closely he observed their general practices and more deeply he studied the teaching and the faith of the Protestant Episcopal Church the more painfully shocked, disappointed, and disillusioned Bishop Raphael became; furthermore, the very fact of his own position in the Anglican and Orthodox Union made the confusion and deception of Orthodox people the more certain and serious. The Episcopal Clergy informed the Orthodox people that Bishop Raphael recognized the Anglican Communion (Protestant Episcopal Church) as being united with the Holy Orthodox Church and their ministry, that is, Holy Orders, as valid; they offered their ministrations even when Orthodox clergy were residing in the same towns and parishes, as pastors, saying that there was no need of the Orthodox people seeking the ministrations of their own Orthodox priests, for their ministrations were all that were necessary. Bishop Raphael found that his association with Episcopalians was made a basis for most insidious, injurious, and unwarranted propaganda in favor of the Protestant Episcopal Church among his parishes and faithful.

Finally, after more than a year of constant and careful study and observation, Bishop Raphael felt that it was his duty to resign from the association of which he was a vice-president. In doing this he hoped that the end of his connection with the Union would end also the Protestant Episcopal interferences and uncalled for intrusions in the affairs and religious harmony of his people.

Therefore, while the American Branch of the "Union" was preparing for its fourth annual meeting to be held on November 10, 1911, Bishop Raphael decided to resign from the association. He wrote his letter of resignation on September 26, 1911, but he did not send it to the members of the Branch until the day before the meeting, on November 9, 1911. The letter was read at the meeting and the members of the Branch accepted the resignation of Bishop Raphael, assigning a special committee to prepare a letter responding to Bishop Raphael's letter of resignation. The committee wrote the response on December 21, 1911.

Bishop Raphael's letter of resignation from the American Branch was well-received by all Orthodox Christians in North America and in Russia, and he was commended by all who understood Anglicanism and the reason for its desire for dialogue with the Orthodox Church. These included such people as Archbishop Platon, Bishop Alexander and the Orthodox clergy in North America. Nicholas Uspensky, secretary of the Kiev Theological School, wrote Raphael on March 18, 1912, saying, "I read your letter of resignation in the Russian-American Orthodox Messenger. I admire your literary courage which every Orthodox bishop should follow." Sir Campbell, a doctor of Canon Law in England and a convert to Orthodoxy, wrote to Bishop Raphael on October 17, 1911, saying that he had read the letter of resignation in two Catholic magazines in England, adding that the Anglican/Orthodox movement was founded only because the Anglican Church needed to have its Orders recognized as valid by the Orthodox Church.

In the August, 1912 issue of Al-Kalimat (THE WORD) Bishop Raphael issued an official edict to his flock rescinding his earlier permission (1910) and forbidding them to accept the ministrations of Protestant Episcopal clergymen. Later that same year Bishop Raphael reinforced the above edict by sending a "Pastoral Letter" to all of his clergy and laity explaining in depth the whole matter.
 Word Magazine
Publication of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
April 1995
pp. 5-7
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/issa_bishop_raphael_part3.htm
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 #76 on: August 28, 2009, 11:03:49 AM »

And now Met./Arb./EP/Pope Meletios:
Quote
Orthodox Statements on Anglican Orders
ALEXANDRIA, 1930
After the Lambeth Conference of 1930, the Synod of the Patriarchate of
Alexandria found itself able to join in the recognition of Anglican Orders.
The decision was announced in a letter from the Patriarch to the
Archbishop of Canterbury as follows:
To the Most Reverend Dr. Cosmo Lang, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury
and Primate of All England,
Greetings in the New Born Christ
The Feast of the Nativity, according to the Flesh, of the Redeemer of our
Souls being a most suitable occasion for us, as it were, to visit your
Beatitude, our friend, by means of a letter, we come to you hereby with a
heart that is filled alike with joy, that "unto us is born a Savior, which is
Christ the Lord," and with fervent prayers both for your health and for the
peace and stability of the holy Churches of God over which you preside.
At the same time, together with our greetings for the Feast, we send you as
our gift the news, which we are sure will be good news, to you, that
having derived the greatest gratification from the accounts which it has
received, both of the marks of honor which were rendered in London,
alike by your Grace and by the general body of your Church, to the office
which is ours, and also of the happy results which by the favouring breath
of the Holy Spirit have emerged from the contact of the Orthodox
Delegation with the Lambeth Conference, our Holy Synod of the
Metropolitans of the Apostolic and Patriarchal Throne of Alexandria has
proceeded to adopt a resolution recognizing the validity, as from the
Orthodox point of view, of the Anglican Ministry.
The text of that resolution is as follows: "The Holy Synod recognizes that
the declarations of the Orthodox, quoted in the Summary, were made
according to the spirit of Orthodox teaching. Inasmuch as the Lambeth
Conference approved the declarations of the Anglican Bishops as a
genuine account [1] of the teaching and practice of the Church of England
and the Churches in communion with it, it welcomes them as a notable
step towards the Union of the two Churches. And since in these
declarations, which were endorsed by the Lambeth Conference, complete
and satisfying assurance is found as to the Apostolic Succession, as to a
real reception of the Lord’s Body and blood, as to the Eucharist being
thusia hilasterios [2] (Sacrifice), and as to Ordination being a Mystery, the
Church of Alexandria withdraws its precautionary negative to the
acceptance of the validity of Anglican Ordinations, and, adhering to the
decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, of July 28, 1922, pronounces that
if priests, ordained by Anglican Bishops, accede to Orthodoxy, they
should not be re-ordained, as persons baptized by Anglicans are not
rebaptized."
We rejoice to see the middle wall of partition being thrown down more
and more, and we congratulate your Beatitude that under God you have
had the felicity of taking the initiative in furthering that work. May the
Lord Who was born in Bethlehem give to you and to us the happiness of
its completion.
In Alexandria upon the Feast of Christ’s Nativity, 1930
Your Beatitude’s Beloved Brother in Christ
Meletios of Alexandria
In reporting this decision to the Oecumenical Patriarch Meletios
emphasized that his Synod was acting on the basis that the statements
made at Lambeth had removed their former hesitation "as to the teaching
of the Anglican Church upon the mysteries and Apostolic succession," and
could be held to have met the desire expressed by the Romanian Patriarch
in replying to Constantinople in 1925, when he wrote,
But in order to make a definite pronouncement, we desire especially that
the Anglican Church herself should precise her doctrine concerning the
holy mysteries and particularly concerning orders: does she hold it to be a
mystery or not?
Since that requirement had now been satisfied, wrote Meletios,
It is proper that the validity of Anglican Orders should now be recognized
by all Orthodox Churches. For that which, according to the same letter,
was "one of the most serious obstacles in the way of the Union of the two
Churches," has been "removed."
Letter published in The Christian East, vol. XII, 1931, pp. 1-6, with notes
as above; the quotation in Note 2 is from No. 11 in the Resume of the
Lambeth Discussions, reprinted below, p. 22.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The words in the Resolution of the Lambeth Conference are "sufficient account."
[2] We transliterate the term, thusia hilasterios, and do not translate it by propitiatory
sacrifice, or expiatory sacrifice, because, as generally used, these terms present
conceptions which are not attached by the Orthodox to thusia hilasterios. The words used
by the Anglican Bishops in their discussions with the Orthodox Delegation, as recorded
in the Resume, and endorsed by the Lambeth Conference are:
"… that the Anglican Church teaches the doctrine of Eucharistic Sacrifice as explained in
the Answer of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to Pope Leo XIII, on Anglican
Ordinations: and also that in the offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Anglican
Church prays that ‘by the merits and death of Thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in
His Blood, we and all Thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other
benefits of His Passion,’ as including the whole company of faithful people, living and
departed."
Lambeth Conference Report, 1930, p. 139.
http://orthodoxanglican.net/downloads/alexandria.pdf

Note: NO Anglican/Episcopalian priest has been received into Orthodoxy except by re-ordination, or rather, ordination.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2009, 11:05:05 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 #77 on: August 28, 2009, 11:47:02 AM »

Thanks for starting my research for me...I'll ignore your conclusions, however.
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 #78 on: August 28, 2009, 12:14:18 PM »

Thanks for starting my research for me...I'll ignore your conclusions, however.

just as long as you don't ignore the facts.
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 #79 on: August 28, 2009, 03:18:57 PM »

Thanks for starting my research for me...I'll ignore your conclusions, however.

just as long as you don't ignore the facts.
But...OF COURSE! Certainly not mis-interpreting any, bending excerpts to fit any pre-conceived notions or use them in cut n' paste artistry pretending to be history.
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 #80 on: August 28, 2009, 04:09:47 PM »

Thanks for starting my research for me...I'll ignore your conclusions, however.

just as long as you don't ignore the facts.
But...OF COURSE! Certainly not mis-interpreting any, bending excerpts to fit any pre-conceived notions or use them in cut n' paste artistry pretending to be history.

We eargerly await the fruit of your labor that we may be enlightened.
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 #81 on: August 28, 2009, 11:43:02 PM »

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.


Irony of ironies.  What strange bedfellows history makes.

This wasn't the first time Met. Meletios had a run in with the Russian canonical bishops of America:
Archb. Metaxakis' of Athens speech to the Holy Synod of Greece in 1920 concerning his visit to America:
Quote
The Patriarchal Tome of 1908 directed the immediate assignment of a Greek Bishop in America.   However I learned in America that for a decade, diplomatic pressures prevented the implementation of the Patriarchal Tome.  Upon my arrival, I waited for the Russian Bishop to come to me; however, he did not.  In order to give him the opportunity, I sent Archimandrites Chrysostom and Alexander to him. He, in turn, reciprocated by sending an Archimandrite to visit me.  I then realized that he expected me to visit him, thus recognizing him as the canonical Bishop in America, under whose jurisdiction the Greek Church ought to belong.  I held a press conference with the Greek and English language newspapers, in which I quoted Orthodox teaching relative to lands outside the existing Patriarchal boundaries that canon law places them under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Thus, the Church in America is under the canonical authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and only by its authority can certain actions be taken.    Our presence in America is by virtue of the permission granted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Tome of 1908, rendering us the only canonical jurisdiction[emph. in the original] No other such permission has been granted.  We are aware only that the Patriarchate of Antioch requested the permission of the Patriarchate to send the Bishop of Seleucia to America for the needs of the Syrian Orthodox.  Prior to this, Efthymios, who was ordained by the Russians for the Syrians, but never recognized by the Patriarchate of Antioch, was abandoned by the Russians.  This event reinforced our position regarding canonicity in America.  Throughout our presence in America, the Russian Bishop attempted indirectly to impose this position of hegemony, yet never openly or officially
http://books.google.com/books?id=Uh4VnseTNZkC&pg=PA137&dq=Galveston+Orthodox&lr=#PPA137,M1

Change Russian to OCA, and see how little has changed.  The GOARCH was set up, not in ignorance of the Russian Archdiocese, but in defiance of it.

As to this picture, I wonder if this has something to do with it:


http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F07EFDA113EEE3ABC4152DFB467838A639EDE
Quote
GREEK PARTIARCH HERE IS HONORED BY 4,000; The Rev. Meletios Metaxakis Presides at First Service SinceArrival 8 Months Ago.
December 19, 1921

More than 4,000 persons gathered yesterday at Holy Trinity Greek Cathedral, East Seventy-second Street, near Lexington Avenue, to greet the Most Rev. Meletios Metaxakis, who will depart for Constantinople this week to be enthroned as Economical Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

It was the first public appearance since his election here of Meletios, although he has been in New York eight months...

Actually no, he had been in America eight months. When the canonical authority of the CoG Met. Germanos arrived in NYC in June of that year, the deposed Met. Meletios ran off to SF, where he divided the Greek community there.  The article refers to these problems:

Quote
...having been exiled as Metropolitan of Athens when King Constantine returned to the throne and Eleutherios Venizelos, friend of Meletios, resigned as premier and left Greece....

The CoG had defrocked Meletios' exarch, Bishop Alexander, when he refused the Holy Synod's recall to Greece.  But here "...With Meletios was the Right Rev. Alexander, Bishop for the Greeks in North and South America...."  The EP elect's problems were not over, though:

Quote
...Meletios preached in Greek.  He said the veto placed by the Sublime Porte upon his election was invalid.  He asserted the Treaty of Sevres specifically provided for the full religious autonomy of minorities within the Ottoman Empire, and that the former right of the Sublime Porte to overrule such an election had vanished with the signing of that treaty.

Alas, we are all well aware how much the right of the Turk to overrule such an election, nearly a century later, has not "vanished."  The problem was the Treaty of Sevres was void ab initio as the Turks were concerned, as no one impowered to sign its terms did so: The Ottomans were not a signatory to Versailles.  Their Constitution stated:
Quote
Art. 1. The Ottoman Empire comprises present territory and possessions, and semi-dependent provinces. It forms an indivisible whole, from which no portion can be detached under any pretext whatever.
Art. 2. Istanbul is the capital of the Ottoman Empire. This city possesses no provilege or immunity peculiar to itself over the other towns of the empire.
Art 3: "The Imperial Ottoman sovereignty, which carries with it the Supreme Caliphate of Islam, falls to the eldest Prince of the House of Osman, according to the rule established ab antiquo. On his accession the Sultan shall swear before Parliament, or if Parliament is not sitting, at its first meeting, to respect the visions of the Şeriat (canon law) and the Constitution, and to be loyal to the country and the nation. [according to the 1909 revision, so too the following article].
Art. 7: Among the sacred prerogatives of the Sultan are the following:...the granting of high public offices and titles, according to the law ad hoc; the conferring of orders; the selection and appointment of the Grand Vizier and the Şeyhülislam; the confirmation in their offices of the members of the Cabinet formed and proposed by the Grand Vizier, and, if need arise, the dismissal and replacement of Ministers according to established practice; the approval of putting into force of general laws; the drawing up of regulations concerning the workings of Government departments and the method of administering the laws; the initiative in all kinds of legislation; the maintenance and execution of the canon and civil laws; the appointment of persons to the privileged provinces according to the terms of their privileges; the command of the military and naval forces; the declaration of war and the making of peace;...and the conclusion of  Treaties in general. Only, the consent of Parliament is required for the conclusion of Treaties which concern peace, commerce, the abandonment or annexation of territory, or the fundamental or personal rights of Ottoman subjects, or which involve expenditure on the part of the State. In case of a change of Cabinet while Parliament is not sitting, the responsibility arising out of the change rests upon the new Cabinet.
Art. 8. All subjects of the empire are called Ottomans, without distinction whatever faith they profess; the status of an Ottoman is acquired and lost according to conditions specified by law.
Art. 9. Every Ottoman enjoys personal liberty on condition of non interfering with the liberty of others.
Art. 11. Islam is the state religion. But, while maintainig this principle, the state will protect the free exercise of faiths professed in the Empire, and uphold the religious privileges granted to various bodies, on condition of public order and morality not being interfered with.
Art. 18. Eligibility to public office is conditional on a knowledge of Turkish, which is the official language of the State.
Art. 27. His Majesty may appoint as Grand Vizier and Şeyhü’l-İslam whomsoever he confides in, and thinks right to nominate to those posts.
The other ministers are appointed by Imperial Decree (İrade)
Art. 28. The Council of Ministers meets under the presidency of the Grand Vizier.
All weighty state affairs, whether domestic or foreign, come within the competency of the Council of Ministers. Those of their measures, which must be submitted for the approval of His Majesty, are made law by Imperial Decree
Art. 29. Each head of department, within the limits of his powers, carries out the measures, which appertain to his Department. In matters without this limit he must have recourse to the Grand Vizier.
The Grand Vizier takes action on the measures presented to him by the heads of departments, either by referring them, if need be, to the Cabinet, and then presenting them for the Imperial sanction; or, on the other hand, by deciding on them himself, and referring them to the decision of His Majesty the Sultan.
Art. 30. Ministers shall be responsible to the Chamber of Deputies collectively for the general policy of the Government and personally for the affairs of their respective departments. Decisions which need the Imperial sanction shall only become valid if signed by the Grand Vizier and the Minister concerned, who thus accept responsibility, and countersigned by the Sultan. Decisions arrived at by the Council of Ministers shall bear the signatures of all the Ministers, and in cases where the Imperial assent is necessary, these signatures shall be headed by that of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan.
Art. 36. In case of urgent necessity, if the General Assembly be not in session, the Minister may adopt measures to protect the State against danger or to preserve the public safety.
These measures, sanctioned by an Imperial Irade, have provisionally the force of law if they be not contrary to the Constitution. They must be submitted to the General Assembly immediately upon its meeting.
Art. 39. All appointments to various public functions shall be made in conformity with the regulations which shall determine the conditions of merit and capacity required for admission to employment under the state. No functionary appointed under these conditions can be dismissed or transferred; unless it can be proved that his conduct legally justified such removal; unless he shall have resigned, or unless his retirement is considered indispensable by the government.
Art. 41. Both houses of Parliament shall meet without being summoned on the 1st (14th) November of every year.
Art 46. All the members of the General Assembly shall take an oath of fidelity to His Majesty the Sultan and to the country, shall bind themselves to observe the Constitution, to perform the duties entrusted to them, and to abstain from all acts opposed to those duties.
Art. 47. Members of the General Assembly are free to express their opinions and to vote as they like.
They cannot be bound by conditions or promises, nor influenced by threats. They cannot be prosecuted for opinions or votes delivered in the course of debate, unless they have contravened the Standing Orders of the Chamber, when they are amenable to the provisions of the regulations in force.
Art. 48. Any member of the General Assembly who, by an absolute majority of two-thirds of the Chamber of which he is a member, is accused of treason, or attempting to violate the Constitution, or of peculation (“concussion”), or has been condemned to imprisonment or exile, loses his status as Senator or Deputy.
He will be tried and sentence passed by the competent tribunal.
Art. 56. With the exception of the Ministers, of their deputies, and the functionaries summoned by a special call, no one can be introduced in either Chamber, nor allowed to make any communication whatever, whether he present himself in his own name or as the representative of a body.
Art. 58. The votes are given at the call of the House (“par appel nominal”), by show of hands or by ballot. The vote by ballot is subject to the decision of a majority of the members present.
Art. 59. The maintenance of order in each Chamber is entrusted to its President.
Art. 60. The President and members of the Senate are nominated directly by His Majesty the Sultan. The number of senators cannot exceed a third of the members of the Chamber of Deputies.
Art. 61. To be nominated a senator it is necessary to have shown by one’s acts that one is worthy of public confidence, or to have rendered signal services to the State, and to be, at least, forty years of age.
Art. 62. The senators are nominated for life.
The rank of senator may be conferred on persons “en disponibilité,” having exercised the functions of Minister, Governor-General (vali), Commandant of Corps d’Armée, Judge, Ambassador or Minister Plenipotentiary, Patriarch, Grand Rabbi, General of Division of armies by land or sea (“terre et de mer”), an generally on persons combining the requisite conditions.
Members of the Senate, called at their request to other functions, lose the position as senator.
Art. 64. The Senate examines the Bills or Budget transmitted to it by the Chamber of Deputies. If in the course of the examination of a Bill the Senate finds a provision contrary to the sovereign rights of the Sultan, to liberty, the Constitution, the territorial integrity of the Empire, the internal security of the country, to the interests of the defence of the country, or to morality, it rejects it definitely by a vote, assigning its reasons; or it sends it back, accompanied by its observations, to the Chamber of Deputies, demanding that it should be amended or modified in the sense of those observations.
Bills adopted by the Senate are invested with its approval, and are transmitted to the Grand Vizier.
The Senate examines the petitions presented to it; transmits to the Grand Vizier such as it thinks deserving of reference, accompanying them with its observations.
Art. 65. The number of deputies is fixed at one deputy for every 50.000 males belonging to the Ottoman nationality.
Art. 66. The election is held by secret ballot. The mode of election will be determined by a special law.
Art. 67. The mission of deputy is incompatible with public functions, except those of ministers. Any other public functionary elected deputy is free to accept or refuse; but, in case of acceptance, he must resign his functions.
Art. 68. The following are ineligible as deputies:
1. Those who do not belong to the Ottoman nationality; 2. Those who, by virtue of the special regulation in force, enjoy immunities attached to the foreign service to which they belong; 3. Those not understanding Turkish...7. Those notoriously in disrepute for their conduct; 8. Persons visited with judicial interdiction, as long as that interdiction is not raised; 9. Those not enjoying their civil rights; 10. Those who lay claim to a foreign nationality. After the expiration of the first period of four years, one of the conditions of eligibility will be ability to read Turkish and, as far as possible, to write in that language.
Art. 69. General elections of deputies are held every four years. The commission of every deputy lasts only four years, but he is re-eligible.
Art. 70. The general elections commence at the latest four months before the 1st of November, which is the date fixed for the meeting of the Chamber.
Art. 71. Every member of the Chamber of deputies represents the whole body of Ottomans, and not exclusively the circumscription which has elected him.
Art. 72. The electors are bound to choose their deputies from among the inhabitants of the province to which they belong.
Art. 73. In case of the dissolution of the Chamber by Imperial İrade, the general elections are to commence in such times as that the Chamber may meet again at the latest within six months of the date of the dissolution.
Art. 74. In the case of death, judicial interdiction, prolonged absence, loss of the office of  Deputy resulting from a condemnation or from the acceptance of public functions, a substitute shall be elected in conformity with the prescriptions of the electoral law, and in such time as that the new deputy will be able to exercise his mandate at the latest in the following session.
Art. 75. The mandate of deputies elected to vacant places only lasts till the following election.
Art. 78. The sittings of the Chamber of deputies are public.
At the same time the Chamber may form itself into secret committee if the proposition is made by the ministers, or by the president, or by fifteen members, and that proposition is voted in secret committee.
Art. 79. No deputy can, during the session, be arrested or prosecuted, except in case of flagrant delinquency, unless a majority of the Chamber grant an authorization to prosecute.
Art. 80. The Chamber of deputies discusses the Bills submitted to it.
It adopts, amends, or rejects the provisions affecting finance or the Constitution.
Art. 87. Affairs touching the Şeriat are tried by the tribunals of the Şeriat. The judgment of civil affairs appertains to the civil tribunals.
Art. 88. The various categories of tribunals, their competency, functions, and the emoluments of the judges are settled by law.
Art. 92. The High Court is formed of thirty members, of whom ten are Senators, ten Councilors of State, and ten chosen among the presidents and members of the Court of Cassation and Court of Appeal.
All the members are nominated by lot.
The High Court is convoked, when necessary, by Imperial İrade, and assembles in the Senate building.
Its functions consist in trying the ministers, the president, and the members of the Court of Cassation, and all other persons accused of treason or attempts against the safety of the State.
Art. 93. The High Court is composed of two chambers; the Chamber of Accusation and the Chamber of Judgment.
The former is formed of nine members, nominated by lot among the members of the High Court, three of them being senators, three councilors of State, and three members of the Court of Cassation or Court of Appeal.
Art. 94. The decision of sending before the Chamber of Judgement is pronounced by the Chamber of Accusation by a majority of two-thirds of its members. The members belonging of the Chamber of Accusation cannot take part in the deliberations of the Chamber of Judgment.
Art. 95. The Chamber of Judgement is formed of twenty-one members, seven of whom are senators, seven members state councilors, and seven members of the Court of Cassation or Court of Appeal. It judges the cases that are sent to it by the Chamber of accusation by a majority of two-thirds of its members, and conformably to the laws in operation.
Its decisions are not susceptible either of appeal or of recourse to Cassation.
Art. 111. There shall be in every canton a Council appertaining to each of the different confessions. This Council will be charged with controlling:
1.    The administration of the revenues of the real property of pious foundations (vakıf), the special destination of which is fixed by the express provisions of the founders or by custom.
2.    The employment of funds or properties assigned by testamentary provision to acts or charity or beneficence.
3.    The administration of funds for orphans, in conformity with the special regulation governing the matter.
Each Council shall be composed of members elected by the community it represents, conformably to special rules to be established. These Councils will be subordinated to the local authorities and the Councils General of provinces.
Art. 112. Municipal business will be administered in Istanbul and in the provinces by elected municipal councils.
The organization of the municipal councils, their functions, and the mode of election of their members, will be determined by a special law.
Art. 113. In the case of the perpetration of acts, or the appearance of indications of a nature to presage disturbance at any point on the territory of the Empire, the Imperial Government has the right to proclaim a state of siege there.
The state of siege consists in the temporary suspension of the civil laws.
The mode of administration of localities under a state of siege will be regulated by a special law.
His Majesty the Sultan has the exclusive right of expelling from the territory of the Empire those who, in consequence of trustworthy information obtained by the police, are recognized as dangerous to the safety of the State.
Art. 115. No provision of the constitution can, under any pretext whatsoever, be suspended or neglected.

Art. 116. In case of duly proved necessity, the Constitution may be modified in some of its provisions. This modification is subordinated to the following conditions:
Every proposal of modification, whether presented by the Minister or by either of the two Chambers, must be, in the first instance, submitted to the deliberations of the Chamber of Deputies.
If the proposition is approved by two-thirds of the members of the Chamber it shall be forwarded to the Senate.
In case the Senate also adopts the proposed modification by a two-thirds majority, it shall be submitted for the sanction of His majesty the Sultan.
If it is sanctioned by Imperial İrade, it shall have force of law.
Articles of the Constitution, which it is proposed to modify, remain in force, until the modification, after having been voted by the Chambers, shall have been sanctioned by Imperial Irade.
Art. 117. The Court of Cassation will interpret the civil and penal laws; the Council of State administrative laws; and the Senate the articles of the Constitution.
Art. 118. All the provisions of the laws, regulations, usages, and customs now in force shall continue to be applied, so long as they shall not have been modified or abrogated by other laws and regulations
Art. 120. Ottomans enjoy the right of assembly, on the condition that they obey the law on the subject.  The societies are forbidden which aim at injuring the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire, changing the form of the institution or of the government, acting contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, or bringing about a separation between the various Ottoman elements, or which are contrary to public morals.  The formation of secret societies in general is also forbidden.
http://www.anayasa.gen.tr/1876constitution.htm

I won't go into here (unless necessary) how in view of the above, the Treaty of Sevres could not be signed by a competent legal authority on the Ottoman side: its terms would make any Ottoman who signed it guilty of treason etc, and the Ottoman government was not legally capable to fulfill its terms. The British abolished the Ottoman parliament, literally at gun point (rule of law, enlightment popular sovereignty, etc.), and the allies arrested members, exiled members to Malta that they didn't kill, and forced the Sultan to abolish it, although under the Ottoman constitution neither he nor they had any authority to do any of the above.  So no parliament to give consent, as legally required.  Instead over a hundred deputies fled to Ankara, (the articles as to numbers etc. so impowered them legally), where they constituted themselves into the new Grand National Assembly, which functioned as parliament and constitutional convention.  They refused to acknowledge the Treaty of Sevres (which was never ratified by the Ottomans), arguing that the Sultan (whose office they abolished) had no constitutional nor sovereign authority, and, by accepting the Treaty of Lausanne, France and Great Britain conceded the argument.

The site with the text of the Treaty of Sevres says it all:
Quote
The Peace Treaty of Sèvres
10 August, 1920
(never adopted, superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne).

Met. Meletios seemed to have depended on these clauses:
Quote
ARTICLE 36.
Subject to the provisions of the present Treaty, the High Contracting Parties agree that the rights and title of the Turkish Government over Constantinople shall not be affected, and that the said Government and His Majesty the Sultan shall be entitled to reside there and to maintain there the capital of the Turkish State.
Nevertheless, in the event of Turkey failing to observe faithfully the provisions of the present Treaty, or of any treaties or conventions supplementary thereto, particularly as regards the protection of the rights of racial, religious or linguistic minorities, the Allied Powers expressly reserve the right to modify the above provisions, and Turkey hereby agrees to accept any dispositions which may be taken in this connection.
ARTICLE 49.
In the portion of the zone of the Straits, including the islands of the Sea of Marmora, which remains Turkish, and pending the coming into force of the reform of the Turkish judicial system provided for in Article I36, all infringements of the regulations and by-laws made by the Commission, committed by nationals of capitulatory Powers, shall be dealt with by the Consular Courts of the said Powers. The Allied Powers agree to make such infringements justiciable before their Consular Courts or authorities. Infringements committed by Turkish nationals or nationals of non-capitulatory Powers shall be dealt with by the competent Turkish judicial authorities.
In the portion of the said zone placed under Greek sovereignty such infringements will be dealt with by the competent Greek judicial authorities.
ARTICLE 140.
Turkey undertakes that the stipulations contained in Articles 141, I45 and I47 shall be recognised as fundamental laws, and that no civil or military law or regulation, no Imperial Iradeh nor official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation, Imperial Iradeh nor official action prevail over them.
ARTICLE 141.
Turkey undertakes to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty to all inhabitants of Turkey without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race or religion.
All inhabitants of Turkey shall be entitled to the free exercise, whether public or private, of any creed, religion or belief.
The penalties for any interference with the free exercise of the right referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be the same whatever may be the creed concerned.
ARTICLE 145.
All Turkish nationals shall be equal before the law and shall enjoy the same civil and political rights without distinction as to race, language or religion.
Difference of religion, creed or confession shall not prejudice any Turkish national in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, as for instance admission to public employments, functions and honours, or the exercise of professions and industries.
Within a period of two years from the coming into force of the present Treaty the Turkish Government will submit to the Allied Powers a scheme for the organisation of an electoral system based on the principle of proportional representation of racial minorities.
No restriction shall be imposed on the free use by any Turkish national of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, religion, in the press or in publications of any kind, or at public meetings. Adequate facilities shall be given to Turkish nationals of non-Turkish speech for the use of their language, either orally or in writing, before the courts.
ARTICLE 147.
Turkish nationals who belong to racial, religious or linguistic minorities shall enjoy the ame treatment and security in law and in fact as other Turkish nationals. In particular they shall have an equal right to establish, manage and control at their own expense, and independently of and without interference by the Turkish authorities, any charitable, religious and social institutions, schools for primary, secondary and higher instruction and other educational establishments, with the right to use their own language and to exercise their own religion freely therein.
ARTICLE 149.
The Turkish Government undertakes to recognise and respect the ecclesiastical and scholastic autonomy of all racial minorities in Turkey. For this purpose, and subject to any provisions to the contrary in the present Treaty, the Turkish Government confirms and will uphold in their entirety the prerogatives and immunities of an ecclesiastical, scholastic or judicial nature granted by the Sultans to non-Moslem races in virtue of special orders or imperial decrees (firmans, hattis, berats, etc.) as well as by ministerial orders or orders of the Grand Vizier.
All laws, decrees, regulations and circulars issued by the Turkish Government and containing abrogations, restrictions or amendments of such prerogatives and immunities shall be considered to such extent null and void.
Any modification of the Turkish judical system which may be introduced in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty shall be held to override this Article, in so far as such modification may affect individuals belonging to racial minorities.
ARTICLE 150.
In towns and districts where there is resident a considerable proportion of Turkish nationals of the Christian or Jewish religions the Turkish Government undertakes that such Turkish nationals shall not be compelled to perform any act which constitutes a violation of their faith or religious observances, and shall not be placed under any disability by reason of their refusal to attend courts of law or to perform any legal business on their weekly day of rest. This provision, however, shall not exempt such Turkish nationals (Christians or Jews) from such obligations as shall be imposed upon all other Turkish nationals for the preservation of public order.
ARTICLE 151.
The Principal Allied Powers, in consultation with the Council of the League of Nations, will decide what measures are necessary to guarantee the execution of the provisions of this Part. The Turkish Government hereby accepts all decisions which may be taken on this subject.
http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Peace_Treaty_of_S%C3%A8vres

His problem was that he was not a Turkish national, so its guarentees did not apply to him, Turkey's sovereignty over Constantinople and to issue irade and berat (the credentialing that the EP needed to take office) undisturbed.  As we saw, this wasn't his only problem:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22981.msg351897/topicseen.html#msg351897
as the NY Times article continues:
Quote
Meletios expressed regret at the opposition of the Greek Government, along with the Turkish power, to his election.  The prelate said he hoped the Greek Government would not insist upon interferring in this matter, in which the Greek clergy had full autonomy.

But insist they did, and the Greek controlled Churches-Alexandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus and the CoG-i.e. all the Churches that oppose OCA autocephaly, refused to recognize Meletios as EP.

Quote
HOLY SYNOD ASKS MELETIOS TO RESIGN; Cables Him Recent Election as Constantinople Patriarch Is Illegal. HE DISCREDITS THE REPORT Says He Has Raceived No Such Cable and Will Go to Constantinople to Investigate.
December 19, 1921
ATHENS, Dec. 18.--The Holy Synod in Constantinople, according to a dispatch received here, has telegraphed Archbishop Meletios Metaxakis, who is now in New York and who recently was elected Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church in Constantinople, as follows: Your recent election to the Patriarchate was held contrary to the canons of the Church, and therefore is illegal.  A majority of the Synod felt compelled to absent themselves from the electoral assembly and entrusted the question to the superior body administering the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which agreed to meet again to consider what future action was necessary.  "We fell confident that the greatness of your love for the Church and nation will guide your attitude in this matter."
A dispatch from Constantinople last Wednesday said the Sublime Porte had notified the Allies that Archbishop Metaxakis was ineligible for the office of Patriarch according to the Ottoman Constitution, and that the Turkish Government therefore refused to recognize the legality of his election....
Meletios explained that two bodies had to act in the election of an Ecumenical Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Both hold their meetings at Constantinople.  The first is known as the General Assembly and consists of 100 laymen and the all the Archbishops at the time in Constantinople.  The second is the Holy Synod, which consists of twelve Archbishops. The first body made three nominations, and Meletios was one.  Then the Holy Synod met and considered the three, electing Meletios.
At the election of a patriarch all the Archbishops present in Constantinople have the right to vote in the Holy Synod.  Twenty-five Archbishops were present.  Seven have resigned, eighteen cast a ballot.  Of these eighteen, sixteen voted for Meletios. This is information came to him through private dispatches.
The cable message which Meletios received under date of Dec. 16 from Constantinople was addressed to "His Holiness, Meletios," and was as follows: "By unanimous vote of clergymen and laymen you are elected to the apostolic ecumenical throne....This was signed "The Holy Synod and the Mixed Council...."
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E07EFDA113EEE3ABC4152DFB467838A639EDE
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E07EFDA113EEE3ABC4152DFB467838A639EDE
(since he admitted himself that 2 did not vote for him, how was it unanimous? Roll Eyes)

Ah, but ironies of ironies, someone did recognize Meletios as EP:
Quote
The Patriarch elect, who has been recognized by both the Russian and Episcopal Churches here, will sail for Constantinople by way of Liverpool.  This morning at 10 o'clock there will be a service for him in St. Nicholas Russian Cathedral, Ninety-Seventh Street, near Fifth Avenue, which will be attended by two Russian archbishops, three Episcopal bishops and a Russian, Serbian and Syrian bishop.  Wednesday afternoon at 4 o'clock there will be a service in the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, on invitation of Bishop Manning.

So Meletios was recognized as EP by those who he claimed had no jurisdiction.




« Last Edit: August 29, 2009, 12:12:38 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
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 #82 on: August 29, 2009, 06:13:15 PM »

Quote
ELECTION OF MELETIOS CONTESTED IN GREECE; Congress of Ecumenic Patriarchates Declares It to Have Been Illegal.
January 1, 1922,

WASHINGTON, Dec. 31.-The Greek Legation today received an official telegram from Athens stating that the Congress of High Clergy of the Ecumenical Patriarchates which met at Saloniki yesterday declared that the election of Meletios Metaxakis as Patriarch of the Greek Church was anti-canonical, imposed by force, and that it should not have taken place.

Meletios Metaxakis was received last week at the White House by President Harding.  The cablegram received at the Greek Legation today, dated yesterday, follows:

"The Congress of High Clergy of the Ecumenical Patriarchates convoked at Saloniki was opened today.  Metropolitan Cyzique, one of the principal members of the Ecumenical Patriarchate Synod, was elected President.  The Assembled prelates set forth first, and with unanimit, the legality of the reunion.  The congress is to declare that the election of Meletios Metaxakis is anti-canonical, imposed by force, and should be considered as not having taken place.

"The disturbances of Metaxakis in America, who says he is Patriarch, leading into error American opinion, have caused astonishment here, especially as the majority of the Holy Synod of Constantinople has already informed him by telegraph of the illegality of his election.

"The orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, with his clergy, sent to the legitimate majority of the Synod fo Constantinople the following telegram disavowing Metaxakis' election:

"We were grieved to learn by your telegram the circumstances of the Patriarchal election at Constantinople, and the violations of the canons, imploring divine assistance in view of reestablishing peace in the Patriarchal Church in Alexandria and assuring peace in the Apostolic Church at Constantinople, which is in conformity with the holy canons mentioned in your telegram.  The Church of Alexandria will consecrate all its efforts for the triumph of the right.'

"According to information received up to the present, the orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem will not recognize Metaxakis' election.

Met./Arb./EP/Pope Meletios was trained in Jerusalem, ordained in Antioch, elevated in Greece.  Here, none of those who knew him best would have him. police

Quote
"Greek public opinion is badly impressed in learning of the honors paid to Metaxakis in America, and which he himself provokes by fooling the clery and taking advantage of the respect and sympathy toward the orthodox Church.  The lawsuit against Metaxakis by the Holy Synod of the Greek Church for illegally occupying the seat of Athens and anti-canonical disturbances in America is fixed for Jan. 31.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E03E6DF1239E133A25752C0A9679C946395D6CF
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E03E6DF1239E133A25752C0A9679C946395D6CF

Ah the ironies, those who rejected him would be embracing him later:

Quote
METAXAKIS ELECTED GREEK PATRIARCH; Will Reassume at Alexandria Title Stripped From Him by the Turks.
June 13, 1926

Mgr. Meletios Metaxakis, formerly known as Meletios IV, Patriarch of Constantinople, who was, illegally, it is alleged, dethroned by King Constantine of Greece and expelled by the Turks in 1922, and is well known in the United States and England as an advocate of unity among the Apostolic Communions, has been elected Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, the tourist port of Cairo.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20A15FE35591B7A93C1A8178DD85F428285F9&scp=4&sq=Meletios%20Alexandria&st=cse
Quote
EASTERN CHURCH TO FILL PALESTINE SEE; Patriarch Meletios IV Seen as Most Likely Successor of the Late Damianos. LATTER A STRONG FIGURE Inclined to be Anti-Ally During War but Had Confidence of Jews and Arabs Alike. An Old-School Patriarch. Difficulties With British. Meletios Has Political Mind.
August 23, 1931

Patriarch Meletios IV of Alexandria, former Patriarch of Constantinople, appears to be the most probable successor to the title of Archbishop of the Holy City of Jerusalem and All the Land of Palestine, according to A.T. Polyzoides, editor of the Greek daily Atlantis, who ...
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0E13F63C591B728DDDAA0A94D0405B818FF1D3&scp=3&sq=Meletios%20Alexandria&st=cse

But he had his supporters here already, including those Russian bishosp whom he denounced as without canonical standing.

Quote
MELETIOS HONORED AT SERVICES HERE; Prelate Is Welcomed by Bishop Manning at St. John the Divine Unity Ceremonies.SPECIAL PRAYERS CHANTEDMany Dignitaries of the Church Are Present--Eastern Patriarch Elect Salls Soon.
December 22, 1921

At a service such as has never before been held to propagate church unity, the Most Rev. Meletios was welcomed by the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, yesterday afternoon, St. Thomas's day.  The final words of congratulation were spoken by the Right Rev. Thomas F. Gallor, Chairman of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church and President of the Council of the Episcopal Church.  The prelate will a few days after Christmas for Constantinople to be enthroned as Ecumenical Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Bishop William T. Manning made an address of welcome.  The Most Rev. Alexander, Bishop for the Russian Church of the Aleutian Islands and North America delivered a short speech.  Two other prelates of the Eastern Orhodox Church-the Right Rev. Alexander, Bishop of the Greeks of North and South America, and the Right Rev. Aftinious of Brooklyn, Bishop for the Syrians-were present.

As a special honor to the visitors, Bishop Manning wore the pallium presented to him by the Russian Archbishop and clergy at the time he was consecrated.

"It gives me great joy to welcome your Holiness to this service in the cathedral church of the diocese," said Bishop Manning.

"We feel it a great blessing to have with us in this cathedral and at this altar the head and chief shepherd of the Mother Church of Christendom.

"We honor you for the true and Christ-like spirit which you have shown in the exercise of your office and work in the Church of which you have given further proof in your recent experiences of trial, or difficulty and of persecusion.

"We honor you also because, through many years, you have been an apostle of Christian unity.  We rejoice that through your recent trials, and their present happy outcome, the principle of seperation between Church and State, which we believe to be so important to the well-being of the Church of Christ, seems to have been vindicated and strengthened.

Too bad we don't have the rolling laughing heads here.

Quote
"It is hard for me to find words to express my gratitude," said the visiting prelate.  "These manifestations of love on the par of the clergy and laity of the Episcopal Church find a most ready response in the hearts of my people.  Therefore, since our hearts beat already in such oneness, I am sure the day is not far off when we shall be one fold with one shepherd."

The gospel for the day was read by the Right Rev. James Henry Darlington of Harrisburg, Pa., who for twenty years has been Chairman of the Commission of the Episcopal Church on relations with the Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholic Churches.....There were more than a score of Eastern Church clergy in the procession.  They included Greek, Russian, Syrian, Rumanian and Arabic priests.

The serive was that of Evening Prayer....and special prayers for Meletios were chanted by Canon Robert R. Jones.  As a special honor to the Greeks the Nicene Creed was recited rather than the Apostles Creed.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9801EED9113EEE3ABC4A51DFB467838A639EDE
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9801EED9113EEE3ABC4A51DFB467838A639EDE

I wonder with or without the filioque (another NY Times article recounts the astonishment when it was said without at the consecration of one of the Russian churches I believe).

The EP elect, rejected by the Greeks, but accepted by the "uncanonical" Russians and the Episcopalians continued in his ecumenist ways (sorry, it fits too well here).

Quote
SEE REUNION STEP AT ANGLICAN PARLEY; Archbishop of Canterbury and Alexandrian Patriarch Tell of Hopes at Lambeth.
July 9, 1930
LONDON, July 8.--There was a striking manifestation at the Lambeth conference today of the growing movement for intercommunion between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20C1FFB3B5C157A93CBA9178CD85F448385F9&scp=5&sq=Meletios%20Alexandria&st=cse
« Last Edit: August 29, 2009, 06:16:25 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
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #83 on: August 30, 2009, 01:20:33 AM »

These selected, out-of-context, even "hit" pieces with YOUR take is history? And you give me sarcasm about eagerly awaiting my work... It won't be Internet paste-up artwork, that I will assure you.
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 #84 on: August 30, 2009, 01:24:10 AM »

These selected, out-of-context, even "hit" pieces with YOUR take is history? And you give me sarcasm about eagerly awaiting my work... It won't be Internet paste-up artwork, that I will assure you.
I'd rather you show me.
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 #85 on: August 30, 2009, 01:56:31 AM »

These selected, out-of-context, even "hit" pieces with YOUR take is history? And you give me sarcasm about eagerly awaiting my work... It won't be Internet paste-up artwork, that I will assure you.
I'd rather you show me.

Put up or shut up, huh? Me, too...of you.
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 #86 on: August 30, 2009, 10:30:20 AM »

These selected, out-of-context, even "hit" pieces with YOUR take is history? And you give me sarcasm about eagerly awaiting my work... It won't be Internet paste-up artwork, that I will assure you.
I'd rather you show me.

Put up or shut up, huh? Me, too...of you.

While are you at it, pleast do explain how when
Quote
After the death of Patriarch Joachim III on June 13, 1912, Meletius was nominated as a candidate for the Patriarchal Throne in Constantinople. However, the Holy Synod decided that Meletius could not canonically be registered as a candidate.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Meletios_IV_(Metaxakis)_of_Constantinople
http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/meletios.htm

less than a decade later he was "canonically" elected?

Btw, that's not his first abnomallity: he was elected a Met. of Cyprus (seeking the Archbishoprick) whereas he was not from Cyprus. He advised his fellow (and rumored relative) Venizelos on how to achieve Enosis with Cyprus (odd, since Crete, from which both came, was not yet united to Greece) and undermine the monarchy in the process.
http://books.google.com/books?id=KQEH4vvG0KwC&pg=PA360&dq=Meletios+Metaxakis+of+Citium+XII#v=onepage&q=Meletios%20Metaxakis%20of%20Citium%20XII&f=false

Btw, add this to the accusations against "EP" Meletios:
Quote
Encyclical on Anglican Orders
from the Oecumenical Patriarch to the Presidents of the Particular Eastern Orthodox Churches, 1922
[The Holy Synod has studied the report of the Committee and notes:]

1. That the ordination of Matthew Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury by four bishops is a fact established by history.

2. That in this and subsequent ordinations there are found in their fullness those orthodox and indispensable, visible and sensible elements of valid episcopal ordination - viz. the laying on of hands, the Epiclesis of the All-Holy Spirit and also the purpose to transmit the charisma of the Episcopal ministry.

3. That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders.

4. That the practice in the Church affords no indication that the Orthodox Church has ever officially treated the validity of Anglican Orders as in doubt, in such a way as would point to the re-ordination of the Anglican clergy as required in the case of the union of the two Churches.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/patriarc.htm

since NO Episcopalian nor Anglican has been received without [re-]ordination, it would seem the EP and Resident Synod's opinion was for naught.
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 #87 on: August 30, 2009, 10:40:25 AM »

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

The photo there is also attatached to a post on "We speak of Tsarist Pressure."

The Bp. may actually be telling the truth here.  P. 61
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10308327/Conversion-of-a-High-Priest-into-a-Christian-Worker

gives a contemporary (1908) Greek American viewpoint, of the Evangelika, even if colored.
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 #88 on: August 30, 2009, 12:19:09 PM »

If Fr. Andreas had successed in obtaining a Greek bishop, I would have thrown rose petals in his holiness' path as he walked off the ship

So, Fr. Michael Andreades left St. Spiridon for St Demetrios and had...no bishop, or are you just obsessed with where his bishop was seated?

...on his canonical cathedra. Then canons have a dim view of him sitting anywhere  else.

Priests without a canonical and valid bishop do not exist.  Not in Orthodoxy at least. No bishop, no antimens, no priest, no DL, no parish.

Btw, Fr. Andreades did not leave St. Spiridon for St. Demetrios: all accounts I've seen state that he left the RM for the GOANSA only after the Bolshevik Revolution.  If you know otherwise, please post.

I tried a google search for GOA and Fr. Andreades, but it yielded nothing.  Nothing. Here a pioneer of Greek Orthodox clergy on this continent, and GOA has nothing to say.

I do:SHAME!

You should re-read your own post, carefully. After Russian Revolution there was NO other canonical jurisdiction here, specifically when the GOAN&SA was formed. You may not like what ArchBp. Meletios did, but his actions were for solid, relaistic reasons. Too bad for you.
As usual, you've a warped sense of historical perspective - skewed by your personal struggle, a jihad.
Another example is your reference to the colony of New Smyrna. Have you read the book yet or just referred to others' references? Those poor Greek Orthodox were left priestless by the colony's organizer, but you prefer to attack their conversion to RC. Attack, why? Because the Russians missioning 3500 miles away?
While you're charging Ultramontanism, why don't we examine your church's intercommunion with Melkite Greek Catholics AND Syriacs? Two can play this game. I prefer not.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #89 on: August 30, 2009, 01:27:19 PM »

If Fr. Andreas had successed in obtaining a Greek bishop, I would have thrown rose petals in his holiness' path as he walked off the ship

So, Fr. Michael Andreades left St. Spiridon for St Demetrios and had...no bishop, or are you just obsessed with where his bishop was seated?

...on his canonical cathedra. Then canons have a dim view of him sitting anywhere  else.

Priests without a canonical and valid bishop do not exist.  Not in Orthodoxy at least. No bishop, no antimens, no priest, no DL, no parish.

Btw, Fr. Andreades did not leave St. Spiridon for St. Demetrios: all accounts I've seen state that he left the RM for the GOANSA only after the Bolshevik Revolution.  If you know otherwise, please post.

I tried a google search for GOA and Fr. Andreades, but it yielded nothing.  Nothing. Here a pioneer of Greek Orthodox clergy on this continent, and GOA has nothing to say.

I do:SHAME!

You should re-read your own post, carefully. After Russian Revolution there was NO other canonical jurisdiction here, specifically when the GOAN&SA was formed. You may not like what ArchBp. Meletios did, but his actions were for solid, relaistic reasons. Too bad for you.
As usual, you've a warped sense of historical perspective - skewed by your personal struggle, a jihad.
Another example is your reference to the colony of New Smyrna. Have you read the book yet or just referred to others' references? Those poor Greek Orthodox were left priestless by the colony's organizer, but you prefer to attack their conversion to RC. Attack, why? Because the Russians missioning 3500 miles away?
While you're charging Ultramontanism, why don't we examine your church's intercommunion with Melkite Greek Catholics AND Syriacs? Two can play this game. I prefer not.

I just want to be sure that we have a common understanding of some of the terminology that has been flung back and forth as rhetorical devices. From the Wiki (proceed at your own risk or bring forth better definitions..all highlights are mine):

"Ultramontanism is a religious philosophy within the Roman Catholic community that places strong emphasis on the prerogatives and powers of the Pope. In particular, ultramontanism may consist in asserting the superiority of Papal authority over the authority of local temporal or spiritual hierarchies (including the local bishop).

Ultramontanism is not recognised by either Eastern or Oriental Orthodox churches as not being in accordance with the Scripture or Tradition; these Churches regard the Pope as primus inter pares and do not recognise the doctrines of infallibility or Pope's alleged jurisdiction over sees other than that of Rome.

Caesaropapism's chief meaning is the authority the Byzantine emperors had over the Eastern Christian Church from the 500s through the tenth century. The Byzantine emperor would typically protect the Eastern Church and manage its administration by presiding over councils and appointing patriarchs and setting territorial boundaries for their jurisdiction. The emperor, whose control was so strong that "caesaropapism" became interchangeable with "Byzantinism", was called "Pontifex Maximus" after the fourth century, and the Patriarch of Constantinople could not hold office if he did not have the emperor's approval. Eastern men like St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople and St. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, strongly opposed imperial control over the Church, as did Western theologians like St. Hilary and Hosius, Bishop of Cordóba. Such emperors as Basiliscus, Zeno, Justinian I, Heraclius, and Constans II published several strictly ecclesiastical edicts either on their own without the mediation of church councils, or they exercised their own political influence on the councils to issue the edicts. Caesaropapism was most notorious in Russia when Ivan IV the Terrible assumed the title Czar in 1547 and subordinated the Russian Orthodox Church to the state. This level of caesaropapism far exceeded that of the Byzantine Empire. Caesaropapism existed in the Orthodox Church in Turkey until 1923 and in Cyprus until 1977, when Archbishop Makrios III reposed. However, in no way is caesaropapism a part of Orthodox dogma. The historical reality, as opposed to doctrinal endorsement or dogmatic definition, of caesaropapism stems from, according to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, the confusion of the Byzantine Empire with the Kingdom of God and the zeal of the Byzantines 'to establish here on earth a living icon of God's government in heaven.' "

You may now resume the argument. The score so far, based on evidence presented, is in favor of ialmisry who is ahead not by a nose, or a horse length but is in this argument all by himself. His opponents seem largely content to take pot shots from the sidelines.


« Last Edit: August 30, 2009, 01:29:49 PM by Second Chance » 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 #90 on: August 30, 2009, 01:40:23 PM »

Quote
You may now resume the argument. The score so far, based on evidence presented, is in favor of ialmisry who is ahead not by a nose, or a horse length but is in this argument all by himself. His opponents seem largely content to take pot shots from the sidelines.

Thoroughly unsurprising contribution.

Potshots is all it's worth.
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 #91 on: August 30, 2009, 04:51:57 PM »

If Fr. Andreas had successed in obtaining a Greek bishop, I would have thrown rose petals in his holiness' path as he walked off the ship

So, Fr. Michael Andreades left St. Spiridon for St Demetrios and had...no bishop, or are you just obsessed with where his bishop was seated?

...on his canonical cathedra. Then canons have a dim view of him sitting anywhere  else.

Priests without a canonical and valid bishop do not exist.  Not in Orthodoxy at least. No bishop, no antimens, no priest, no DL, no parish.

Btw, Fr. Andreades did not leave St. Spiridon for St. Demetrios: all accounts I've seen state that he left the RM for the GOANSA only after the Bolshevik Revolution.  If you know otherwise, please post.

I tried a google search for GOA and Fr. Andreades, but it yielded nothing.  Nothing. Here a pioneer of Greek Orthodox clergy on this continent, and GOA has nothing to say.

I do:SHAME!

You should re-read your own post, carefully. After Russian Revolution there was NO other canonical jurisdiction here,

So why the big deal with EP elect Meletios getting the recognition of those uncanonical bishops?

Did the Russian bishops, Cathedrals, etc. in the New World vaporize?

Sitka is still here.
http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=84&ResourceType=Building
San Francisco is still here.
http://www.holy-trinity.org/
New York is still here.
http://www.russianchurchusa.org/index.php3?mode=985&ln=en

Once more, bishops and priests who served there have been glorified as canonized saints (as also Chicago too, amongst others).


Quote
specifically when the GOAN&SA was formed.

In opposition to its supposed source of authority (the 1908 Tomos) by a deposed met. and his defrocked exarch.

Quote
You may not like what ArchBp. Meletios did, but his actions were for solid, relaistic reasons.

Yes, to advance the cause of Venezilos' program.

Quote
Too bad for you.
As usual, you've a warped sense of historical perspective - skewed by your personal struggle, a jihad.




Quote
Another example is your reference to the colony of New Smyrna. Have you read the book yet or just referred to others' references?

The book is out of print, and I haven't gotten access to a copy. Others' references is all I have, besides other works on the era.  But I am still looking, if for nothing else but to see the Greeks' best argument.

Quote
Those poor Greek Orthodox were left priestless by the colony's organizer, but you prefer to attack their conversion to RC. Attack, why? Because the Russians missioning 3500 miles away?

Lady Turnbull submitted to the Vatican back home in Smyrna.  The Greeks came from colonies where they had submitted before.  I am interested only in the Orthodox.

I saw an image of his eminence, with a child reading a list of names of the colonists in front of the priest who is rightly credited for reestablishing RC church in Florida, in front of the Vatican's cathedral.  Very ecumenical, if not ecumenist, but how Orthodox?


Quote
While you're charging Ultramontanism, why don't we examine your church's intercommunion with Melkite Greek Catholics AND Syriacs? Two can play this game. I prefer not.

As to the Melkites and us, many feel this on the squabble between Old and New Rome: a pox on both your houses.  The Melkites are a mixed bag, some having a bare minimum, if any, attachment to Vatican dogma, or to the Vatican.  The reason why the Melkites cause the Vatican such headaches.  Contrast the Maronites.  I think I have posted these sentiments before.

I know that I have posted my sentiments on the OO: that I hold their faith to be Orthodox.

If "EP"/Pope Meletios was willing to drag Orthodoxy into union with Canteburry, and his predecessor wants to cozy up to the Vatican, why shouldn't Antioch be united with those within the Patriarchate with whom we share the same Faith?  Because Cantebury and the Vatican surely don't.

Btw, you STILL haven't answered why Father Andreades is forgotten by his own ethnic people.  Not enough Hellenocentric?
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 #92 on: August 31, 2009, 09:01:48 AM »

Quote
So why the big deal with EP elect Meletios getting the recognition of those uncanonical bishops?

Did the Russian bishops, Cathedrals, etc. in the New World vaporize?[/quote]

Yes.
Quote
Btw, you STILL haven't answered why Father Andreades is forgotten by his own ethnic people.  Not enough Hellenocentric?

I wasn't aware:
1) That you were asking me a silly question, because
2) Who says he was (is) forgotten? You? Not hellenophob enough?
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 #93 on: August 31, 2009, 10:14:30 AM »

Quote
So why the big deal with EP elect Meletios getting the recognition of those uncanonical bishops?

Quote
Did the Russian bishops, Cathedrals, etc. in the New World vaporize?

Yes.

So when did they reappear?

Quote
Btw, you STILL haven't answered why Father Andreades is forgotten by his own ethnic people.  Not enough Hellenocentric?

I wasn't aware:
1) That you were asking me a silly question, because
2) Who says he was (is) forgotten? You? Not hellenophob enough?

For one thing, he did.  I've seen "Fr." Honcharenko mentioned plenty in GOA related publications, but don't recall Fr. Andreades being there.  I've have to get the chance to look at the GOA anniversary book in the 70s, but I don't recall him.
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
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #94 on: August 31, 2009, 10:34:12 AM »

Quote
So why the big deal with EP elect Meletios getting the recognition of those uncanonical bishops?

Quote
Did the Russian bishops, Cathedrals, etc. in the New World vaporize?

Yes.

So when did they reappear?
Quote
Btw, you STILL haven't answered why Father Andreades is forgotten by his own ethnic people.  Not enough Hellenocentric?

I wasn't aware:
1) That you were asking me a silly question, because
2) Who says he was (is) forgotten? You? Not hellenophob enough?

For one thing, he did.  I've seen "Fr." Honcharenko mentioned plenty in GOA related publications, but don't recall Fr. Andreades being there.  I've have to get the chance to look at the GOA anniversary book in the 70s, but I don't recall him.

I think it was on Star Trek episode 811!

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,036



« Reply #95 on: August 31, 2009, 11:11:26 AM »

Ialmisry and Toumarches,

I think Fr. Andreades is mentioned in some GOAA related books, I can't recall which.  It might be in that 3 volume documentation from a professor at the PAOI. He transferred into the GOAA soon after it was established, and the Russian Archdiocese was dismembering, but the letter I saw showed him respectfully complaining about his assignment to Archbishop Athenagoras and was wondering if he was treated differently because he'd been ordained by Russian bishops.

Also, regarding Patriarch-Elect Meletios' relationship with the Russian-American Archdiocese, there was some sort of an amicable relationship that had developed betwen them.  I never read anything explaining it, but they both issued correspondence recognizing the other.  This was in the period of time that the Russian Archdiocese was falling apart and the Greek Archdiocese was subject to the Church of Greece, which had recalled Archbishop Alexander of Rhodostolou, as Synodal Representative, a directive he ignored because he consider +Theoclitos, the Archbishop of Athens, unfrocked.  After (the Russian) Archbishop Alexandr resigned the American Throne, he attended the Pan-Orthodox Council of 1923 in Constantinople.  Patriarch Meletios received him as a representative of Saint (Patriarch) Tikhon, according to the minutes of the meeting, even though I don't think he was so designated.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
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 #96 on: August 31, 2009, 11:28:31 AM »

Ialmisry and Toumarches,

I think Fr. Andreades is mentioned in some GOAA related books, I can't recall which.  It might be in that 3 volume documentation from a professor at the PAOI. He transferred into the GOAA soon after it was established, and the Russian Archdiocese was dismembering, but the letter I saw showed him respectfully complaining about his assignment to Archbishop Athenagoras and was wondering if he was treated differently because he'd been ordained by Russian bishops.

I'm curious: according to the letter, where did he want to go?


Quote
Also, regarding Patriarch-Elect Meletios' relationship with the Russian-American Archdiocese, there was some sort of an amicable relationship that had developed betwen them.  I never read anything explaining it, but they both issued correspondence recognizing the other.  This was in the period of time that the Russian Archdiocese was falling apart and the Greek Archdiocese was subject to the Church of Greece, which had recalled Archbishop Alexander of Rhodostolou, as Synodal Representative, a directive he ignored because he consider +Theoclitos, the Archbishop of Athens, unfrocked.  After (the Russian) Archbishop Alexandr resigned the American Throne, he attended the Pan-Orthodox Council of 1923 in Constantinople.  Patriarch Meletios received him as a representative of Saint (Patriarch) Tikhon, according to the minutes of the meeting, even though I don't think he was so designated.

Correct on all points, except Arb. Theoclitos being unfrocked, but that is Bp. Alexander's error, not yours.
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
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,036



« Reply #97 on: August 31, 2009, 04:23:56 PM »

Ialmisry, As I recall, Fr. Andreades was without a parish for some time while in the GOAA.  He wasn't asking to transfer to another jurisdiction, he was awaiting assignment to another GOAA parish.  I think he was in New York and wanted to remain in the New York area.  I also recall he did receive subsequent assignemnts and died as a retired priest of the GOAA. 
« Last Edit: August 31, 2009, 04:25:31 PM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #98 on: September 01, 2009, 07:50:30 AM »

Ialmisry, As I recall, Fr. Andreades was without a parish for some time while in the GOAA.  He wasn't asking to transfer to another jurisdiction, he was awaiting assignment to another GOAA parish.  I think he was in New York and wanted to remain in the New York area.  I also recall he did receive subsequent assignemnts and died as a retired priest of the GOAA. 
Yes, NY.
He served at Saint Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church, Jamaica, NY 1935-1949.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #99 on: September 01, 2009, 08:02:09 PM »

At the turn of last century, the Russian and Greek peoples were in very different circumstances. Russia was still a formidable empire, while Greece was still in a nation-building stage. Then, their fortunes changed repeatedly over the first 25 years of the 20th Century. Repeated ups and downs for the Greeks (1st and 2nd Balkan Wars, WWI, the war for Anatolia) and a series of disasters for the Russians (War with Japan, WWI and the Bolshevik Revolution/Civil War). I think these circumstances greatly affected both churches.

The problem that we have today is the inability of peoples to accept their errors and mistakes. Greeks are no different. Nor are the Russians. And, both are hiding behind the myth of the Church does not make mistakes. Well, the universal Church does not but this is not transferable to each local church at all times.

So, I do understand why people are touchy and thin-skinned and reluctant to admit faults.
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 #100 on: September 01, 2009, 09:32:41 PM »

So, I do understand why people are touchy and thin-skinned and reluctant to admit faults.

Comes with the human condition combined with lack of education and lack of insight.
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 #101 on: September 02, 2009, 08:22:51 PM »

At the turn of last century, the Russian and Greek peoples were in very different circumstances. Russia was still a formidable empire, while Greece was still in a nation-building stage. Then, their fortunes changed repeatedly over the first 25 years of the 20th Century. Repeated ups and downs for the Greeks (1st and 2nd Balkan Wars, WWI, the war for Anatolia) and a series of disasters for the Russians (War with Japan, WWI and the Bolshevik Revolution/Civil War). I think these circumstances greatly affected both churches.

The problem that we have today is the inability of peoples to accept their errors and mistakes. Greeks are no different. Nor are the Russians. And, both are hiding behind the myth of the Church does not make mistakes. Well, the universal Church does not but this is not transferable to each local church at all times.

So, I do understand why people are touchy and thin-skinned and reluctant to admit faults.

And then what Hapgood wrote in 1906 (i.e. before the Greek Tomos of 1908):
Quote
It has always been the policy of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church of the East, to have her services celebrated in the languages of the countries inhabited by her members.  In accordance with this policy it is desired, eventually, to make English the language, in this country, of the Russian Church, which was the first to bring Christianity to Alaska, and now has more parishes in all sections of the land than either of the other representatives of that Communion-the Greek and Syro-Arabian branches.


At the time of the Tomos of Autocephaly (1970) it was repeated brought up that the Russians were not the most numerous in this country.  Does that also invalidate the 1908 Tomos?

A work of 1899 gives the following (Greek/Russian=), figures of 1897 above those of 1898 and 1899
Ministers: 3/13=16
4/39=43
5/40=45
Churches: 3/12=15
3/29=32
5/31=35
Communicants: 200/13,504=13,704
5,030/43,000=48,030
6,000/43,000=49,000
http://books.google.com/books?id=PLLPAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA65&dq=Churches+Greek+Church+1897&lr=#v=onepage&q=Churches%20Greek%20Church%201897&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=8LLPAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA60&dq=Churches+in+1898&lr=#v=onepage&q=Churches%20in%201898&f=false

« Last Edit: September 02, 2009, 08:56:51 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 #102 on: September 02, 2009, 09:55:40 PM »

At the turn of last century, the Russian and Greek peoples were in very different circumstances. Russia was still a formidable empire, while Greece was still in a nation-building stage. Then, their fortunes changed repeatedly over the first 25 years of the 20th Century. Repeated ups and downs for the Greeks (1st and 2nd Balkan Wars, WWI, the war for Anatolia) and a series of disasters for the Russians (War with Japan, WWI and the Bolshevik Revolution/Civil War). I think these circumstances greatly affected both churches.

The problem that we have today is the inability of peoples to accept their errors and mistakes. Greeks are no different. Nor are the Russians. And, both are hiding behind the myth of the Church does not make mistakes. Well, the universal Church does not but this is not transferable to each local church at all times.

So, I do understand why people are touchy and thin-skinned and reluctant to admit faults.

And then what Hapgood wrote in 1906 (i.e. before the Greek Tomos of 1908):
Quote
It has always been the policy of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church of the East, to have her services celebrated in the languages of the countries inhabited by her members.  In accordance with this policy it is desired, eventually, to make English the language, in this country, of the Russian Church, which was the first to bring Christianity to Alaska, and now has more parishes in all sections of the land than either of the other representatives of that Communion-the Greek and Syro-Arabian branches.


At the time of the Tomos of Autocephaly (1970) it was repeated brought up that the Russians were not the most numerous in this country.  Does that also invalidate the 1908 Tomos?

A work of 1899 gives the following (Greek/Russian=), figures of 1897 above those of 1898 and 1899
Ministers: 3/13=16
4/39=43
5/40=45
Churches: 3/12=15
3/29=32
5/31=35
Communicants: 200/13,504=13,704
5,030/43,000=48,030
6,000/43,000=49,000
http://books.google.com/books?id=PLLPAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA65&dq=Churches+Greek+Church+1897&lr=#v=onepage&q=Churches%20Greek%20Church%201897&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=8LLPAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA60&dq=Churches+in+1898&lr=#v=onepage&q=Churches%20in%201898&f=false


Rather than dispute the facts that you have brought to the table, I was trying to understand why the Greeks have behaved so badly regarding the Church in North America. I have a similar problem with the Russian Church's support of Russian nationalistic ambitions.

To bring us to today's realities, I think we have to look past the historical and canonical issues. Even if it is true that the EP (GOA) does not really have a prayer in logically, historically, or canonically justifying its interpretation of Canon 28, it is also true that (a) the GOA is the largest jurisdiction; (b) the Schmemann/Meyendorff induced prestige has been lost through the supremely bad primacies of +Theodosius and +Herman; (c) OCA's putative ally, the Antiochian Archdiocese must await a new primate to be a player; and (d) until we learn otherwise, MP and the EP appear to be carving up the world into their spheres of influence (cannot be sure if the MP has sacrificed OCA in order to pursue more important priorities in service of the emerging new Russian imperialism).

My father used to say that "one can be dead right." In this instance, I am afraid you will not win anything but bragging rights. IMHO, the coming regional assemblies may be just the sort of breathing space to either to give the Greeks an honest chance to show that they are Orthodox first and foremost, or give the non-Greeks to grow to equal strength and influence so that an administratively united Church will be based on proper grounds.
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 #103 on: September 03, 2009, 10:12:03 AM »

At the turn of last century, the Russian and Greek peoples were in very different circumstances. Russia was still a formidable empire, while Greece was still in a nation-building stage. Then, their fortunes changed repeatedly over the first 25 years of the 20th Century. Repeated ups and downs for the Greeks (1st and 2nd Balkan Wars, WWI, the war for Anatolia) and a series of disasters for the Russians (War with Japan, WWI and the Bolshevik Revolution/Civil War). I think these circumstances greatly affected both churches.

The problem that we have today is the inability of peoples to accept their errors and mistakes. Greeks are no different. Nor are the Russians. And, both are hiding behind the myth of the Church does not make mistakes. Well, the universal Church does not but this is not transferable to each local church at all times.

So, I do understand why people are touchy and thin-skinned and reluctant to admit faults.

And then what Hapgood wrote in 1906 (i.e. before the Greek Tomos of 1908):
Quote
It has always been the policy of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church of the East, to have her services celebrated in the languages of the countries inhabited by her members.  In accordance with this policy it is desired, eventually, to make English the language, in this country, of the Russian Church, which was the first to bring Christianity to Alaska, and now has more parishes in all sections of the land than either of the other representatives of that Communion-the Greek and Syro-Arabian branches.


At the time of the Tomos of Autocephaly (1970) it was repeated brought up that the Russians were not the most numerous in this country.  Does that also invalidate the 1908 Tomos?

A work of 1899 gives the following (Greek/Russian=), figures of 1897 above those of 1898 and 1899
Ministers: 3/13=16
4/39=43
5/40=45
Churches: 3/12=15
3/29=32
5/31=35
Communicants: 200/13,504=13,704
5,030/43,000=48,030
6,000/43,000=49,000
http://books.google.com/books?id=PLLPAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA65&dq=Churches+Greek+Church+1897&lr=#v=onepage&q=Churches%20Greek%20Church%201897&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=8LLPAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA60&dq=Churches+in+1898&lr=#v=onepage&q=Churches%20in%201898&f=false


Rather than dispute the facts that you have brought to the table, I was trying to understand why the Greeks have behaved so badly regarding the Church in North America. I have a similar problem with the Russian Church's support of Russian nationalistic ambitions.

To bring us to today's realities, I think we have to look past the historical and canonical issues. Even if it is true that the EP (GOA) does not really have a prayer in logically, historically, or canonically justifying its interpretation of Canon 28, it is also true that (a) the GOA is the largest jurisdiction; (b) the Schmemann/Meyendorff induced prestige has been lost through the supremely bad primacies of +Theodosius and +Herman; (c) OCA's putative ally, the Antiochian Archdiocese must await a new primate to be a player; and (d) until we learn otherwise, MP and the EP appear to be carving up the world into their spheres of influence (cannot be sure if the MP has sacrificed OCA in order to pursue more important priorities in service of the emerging new Russian imperialism).

My father used to say that "one can be dead right." In this instance, I am afraid you will not win anything but bragging rights. IMHO, the coming regional assemblies may be just the sort of breathing space to either to give the Greeks an honest chance to show that they are Orthodox first and foremost, or give the non-Greeks to grow to equal strength and influence so that an administratively united Church will be based on proper grounds.

those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it (as a history teacher, this quote from Satayana comes in handy to justify my profession).

I'll have to reply in full later, but basically the ignorance emblematic of that the Chief Secretary displayed on the history of non-Greek Orthodoxy in America contributes to his disregard of the situation today.

And I have my own criticisms of the Russian (e.g. Georgia, Ukraine), but as I posted on the Jurisdictional Disunity thread, the Russian did engage in missionary work here: besides the Eastern Catholics, also the Alaskans who continued to convert a half century after the Czar left.  And then to its credit, the decree of the Holy Synod and Czar that the commemoration of the President of the United States should replace that of the Czar in the DL.  Within my lifetime, the Consulate General of Greece still had his throne (literally) in the Greek Cathedral here in Chicago.


Replaced word with one acceptable to forum policy.
-Schultz, Religious Topics section moderator
« Last Edit: September 03, 2009, 10:26:13 AM by Schultz » 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 #104 on: September 04, 2009, 05:17:33 PM »


Rather than dispute the facts that you have brought to the table, I was trying to understand why the Greeks have behaved so badly regarding the Church in North America. I have a similar problem with the Russian Church's support of Russian nationalistic ambitions.

those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it (as a history teacher, this quote from Satayana comes in handy to justify my profession).

I'll have to reply in full later, but basically the ignorance emblematic of that the Chief Secretary displayed on the history of non-Greek Orthodoxy in America contributes to his disregard of the situation today.

I do not think for a minute that the EP/GOA are ignorant of history--they are busy making history for what I think are existential reasons. Therefore, they might ignore and distort history to suit their purpose but I don't think that they ignore it. You and I may not like it, but they are holding face cards right now while we are not.

Look, when faced with a sufficiently powerful Bulgarian state and while jostling with Rome for influence outside its Canon 28 boundaries, Constantinople recognized an autocephalous Bulgarian Church (BC). Soon thereafter, Basil II did his thing and the EP reduced the status of the BC; later, I forget the Milliyet Bashi Patriarch, the EP really messed with the Bulgarian people under its control (this was continued by the Church of Greece). It was all about power--for existential reasons that I do not agree with but were believed by the EP. The crowning touch to EP's real politik was when the Bulgarian Eparchy was established after the Turks polled the people who lived in Macedonia and Thrace:  the EP called a synod to decry and condemn such phyletism, conveniently overlooking the reason for the vote--its own campaign of ethnic cleansing/genocide against the Bulgarians for nationalistic reasons. I will admit that it was again for existential reasons that these were done. It goes on and on.

I do not take the EP's ecclesiastical pronouncements at their face value. There is really no need to rise up in righteous indignation against the EP's twisting of ancient canons and not-so-ancient historical facts. The EP will do and say whatever in order to further its interests. I do not think that the Russian Church is that much better. In any case, Lord Acton's sayings regarding power, authority and corruption hold here: both the Greeks and the Russians have been pushed by history to be who they are. Unless and until they recognize this fact, they will be oblivious to facts because it does not fit their narrative.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2009, 05:25:00 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #105 on: September 06, 2009, 05:53:11 PM »

Now that I have offended both Greeks and Russians, I would like to state that the targets of my criticism are the institutions and leaders of the EP and MP. I am certain that most of the folks below those exalted--priests, deacons and laity alike--are only glancingly affected by power politics based on ethnic/national considerations. In addition to the specific historical examples I wrote above, I think we should also consider the general phenomenon of the corrupting influence of power.

Mr. Chris Banescu, an Orthodox Attorney, recently wrote of the "Warning Signs of Power Corruption in Organizations." He started his article provocatively by quoting Lord Acton:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it."

He continues "Lord Acton's dictum, made in 1887, clearly warns us that the practice of wielding power and influence can corrode the character of leaders. History is replete with examples of individuals who wielded unchecked power and eroded not only their own integrity, but also the ethical and moral foundations of the organizations they led and brought them to catastrophe and ruin. This danger is true of all organizations including businesses, religious institutions, and governments.

Here is the risk inherent in leadership: The greater the leader's power, wealth, authority, and influence, the more likely the leader could succumb to ethical lapses and moral failings. The risk increases if the organization has a culture that lacks financial or managerial transparency and accountability, has insufficient checks and balances on executive power, and discourages criticism from subordinates or members. When a leader with a poorly developed ethical or moral sense ends up leading an organization with a culture that discourages ethical self-examination, a slow but perfect storm starts to form that demands compromise from all levels of leadership and eventually leads to catastrophic consequences." For the warning signs themselves, please go to http://www.ocanews.org/news/BanescuWarningSigns9.3.09.html.

Saint John Chrysostom is reputed to have said that the road of hell is lined with the skulls of bishops. It may have to do with Lord Acton's datum, which was observational in nature, as was Saint John's saying. I personally think that the Evil One likes to attack those who are in leadership roles, particularly those who exhibit self-pride. It does our leaders no good if we spare them our criticism, if we become enablers in this great drama. Sure, Satan will never prevail but he can score small victories here and there. This is why the slave that held the garland of victory over the head of the Roman leader reminded the gloried one of his humanity and mortality. And, this is why we must not refrain from rebuking our religious leaders and even Church institutions.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2009, 05:55:03 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 #106 on: September 10, 2009, 08:29:10 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:

Just came across a notice on St. Nicodemus' canonization, around the time (1908) that this new interpretation of canon 28 appears.


Quote
An Orthodox Canonization
For the first time for many years, the Greek Orthodox
Church has added a new saint to its calendar, Nicodemus the
Haghiorite, an eighteenth-century monk, having been pro-
claimed a saint by the Holy Synod of the Oecumenical
Patriarchate. The last canonization in any of the Orthodox
Churches appears to have been that of St. Seraphim of Sarov,
by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1903.
The feast of Nicodemus the Haghiorite will be observed on
July 14th, the anniversary of his death in 1809. Liturgical
offices for its observance are being prepared by monks of the
Monastery of Haghia Lavra on Mount Athos, and will shortly
be submitted to the Oecumenical Patriarchate for approval.
Born in 1748, Nicodemus the Haghiorite bore the name of
Nicolaus during his early life and education in Smyrna, taking
the name of Nicodemus in religion, when, at the age of twenty-
six, he joined the community of St. Dionysius, on Mount
Athos, where he spent the rest of his life. His fame rests on
his extensive spiritual writings, but his best-known work is an
anthology, the Philokalia, a compilation of passages from the
early Fathers ; the British Museum possesses a copy of the first
edition that used to belong to an eighteenth-century English
convert to Orthodoxy, a son of Lord North.

The Philokalia was assembled by Nicodemus in collabora-
tion with Bishop Macarius of Corinth, and was first published
at Venice in 1782. In 1796 Nicodemus produced a Greek
version of two well-known Catholic works, the Spiritual
Combat and Path to Paradise of Lorenzo Scupoli, under the
title of Unseen Warfare ; and in 1 800 a book of meditations
based on the method of St. Ignatius Loyola. He also helped
Bishop Macarius with a revision of his book urging frequent
communion (1777 ; 1783). All of which makes us think how
close east and west can be, while divided by a gulf so difficult
to bridge. Two volumes of translations from the Russian
version of the Philokalia, and a translation of the drastic
Russian revision of the Unseen Warfare, have been published
in recent years by Messrs. Faber and Faber.


http://www.archive.org/stream/orthodoxeasternc00fortuoft/orthodoxeasternc00fortuoft_djvu.txt
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 #107 on: September 10, 2009, 10:10:26 PM »

^
You came up with much more than the start of the modern interpretation of Canon 28. The work that you provided a link to is an indictment of, in descending order of culpability, the patriarchate of Constantinople, the Russian Church, and the nationalistic aspirations of the people who were once part of the Rum Milliyet.

I am not happy to say that this work helps to confirm my thesis (see my last two posts on the subject). For the Orthodox Church to recover, all of its components must start to put their faith far above their race and ethnicity--not only to shed the shackles of centuries-long corruption by association with earthly powers but also to become again what she was in the beginning.
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 #108 on: September 10, 2009, 11:51:57 PM »

^
You came up with much more than the start of the modern interpretation of Canon 28. The work that you provided a link to is an indictment of, in descending order of culpability, the patriarchate of Constantinople, the Russian Church, and the nationalistic aspirations of the people who were once part of the Rum Milliyet.

I don't agree with the order: Fortescue is quite a Russophobe, and basically says only the CoG is worse.  What I particularly like of Fortescue's statements is that Russian Orthodoxy has interest and thrives only where the Czar's and his interests are: the problem is our little patch of earth here-Alaska, where the majority of the conversions happened after the Russians left, and the US, where the Czar had his name and that of the Imperial family removed from the commemorations in the Church here (while he was still paying a lot of the bills) and replaced with that of the President of the United States.  And in the Middle East, besides the Phanariots, we can't complain.

But yeah, I laugh every time I hear how the OCA is not mature enough for autocephaly and needs the guidance of the Mother Churches.  LOL.  Look at the mess they were (and sometimes, still are).

Franz Joseph  was not the benevolent master that Fortescue makes him: the Czech and Slovak Church produced its martyrs for Orthodoxy before WWI.  Nor was state influence as bad among the Orthodox as he makes it: the Church played a major role in the formation of Serbia and Romania, along with Bulgaria.  And there was a stream running deep below the Czar, which bubbled up in the council of 1917. Were that there was a return.


Quote
I am not happy to say that this work helps to confirm my thesis (see my last two posts on the subject). For the Orthodox Church to recover, all of its components must start to put their faith far above their race and ethnicity--not only to shed the shackles of centuries-long corruption by association with earthly powers but also to become again what she was in the beginning.

If it were only that simple.

I remember Fr. Pat pointing out that we aren't, according to the Bible, naked in heaven.  We don't go back to that innocence in Eden even when we enter Paradise (we wear white linen. Yes, it's a symbol).  In a sense the Protestants are right, there is a pre and post Constantine Church.  The pentarchy etc. is something that won't go away, nor should it.  What should stop is having it be the be all and end all of ecclesiology.

In many ways, what is going on in America, a more conciliar Church (by necessity), more independence from the state (only here is that the case), more shepherding, less administrating, by bishops (though we have some of that too).  The North American Church does have something to offer the Catholic/Universal Church that the Mother Churches cannot.

« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 11:53:30 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 #109 on: September 12, 2009, 11:23:16 AM »

^
You came up with much more than the start of the modern interpretation of Canon 28. The work that you provided a link to is an indictment of, in descending order of culpability, the patriarchate of Constantinople, the Russian Church, and the nationalistic aspirations of the people who were once part of the Rum Milliyet.

I don't agree with the order: Fortescue is quite a Russophobe, and basically says only the CoG is worse.  What I particularly like of Fortescue's statements is that Russian Orthodoxy has interest and thrives only where the Czar's and his interests are: the problem is our little patch of earth here-Alaska, where the majority of the conversions happened after the Russians left, and the US, where the Czar had his name and that of the Imperial family removed from the commemorations in the Church here (while he was still paying a lot of the bills) and replaced with that of the President of the United States.  And in the Middle East, besides the Phanariots, we can't complain.

But yeah, I laugh every time I hear how the OCA is not mature enough for autocephaly and needs the guidance of the Mother Churches.  LOL.  Look at the mess they were (and sometimes, still are).

Franz Joseph  was not the benevolent master that Fortescue makes him: the Czech and Slovak Church produced its martyrs for Orthodoxy before WWI.  Nor was state influence as bad among the Orthodox as he makes it: the Church played a major role in the formation of Serbia and Romania, along with Bulgaria.  And there was a stream running deep below the Czar, which bubbled up in the council of 1917. Were that there was a return.


Quote
I am not happy to say that this work helps to confirm my thesis (see my last two posts on the subject). For the Orthodox Church to recover, all of its components must start to put their faith far above their race and ethnicity--not only to shed the shackles of centuries-long corruption by association with earthly powers but also to become again what she was in the beginning.

If it were only that simple.

I remember Fr. Pat pointing out that we aren't, according to the Bible, naked in heaven.  We don't go back to that innocence in Eden even when we enter Paradise (we wear white linen. Yes, it's a symbol).  In a sense the Protestants are right, there is a pre and post Constantine Church.  The pentarchy etc. is something that won't go away, nor should it.  What should stop is having it be the be all and end all of ecclesiology.

In many ways, what is going on in America, a more conciliar Church (by necessity), more independence from the state (only here is that the case), more shepherding, less administrating, by bishops (though we have some of that too).  The North American Church does have something to offer the Catholic/Universal Church that the Mother Churches cannot.



Would you concur with the following description in the Wiki? "He (Fortescue) was, however, a natural product of his times, and his treatment of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches was sometimes tainted by his ultramontanist tendencies (although he held a very negative opinion of the Roman Curia)."

Also, even though he was very biased, this Catholic priest was not a simpleton, and was able to find sufficient number of facts to draw conclusions from. I think it is scandalous that these facts existed in the first place and I am not reticent in condemning the perpetrators, even though they are the ruling institutions and hierarchs of fellow Orthodox jurisdictions. I think that the Greek (CoG and the EP) and Russian Churches are the guiltiest ones in this regard, even today. I agree that we do have a chance in North America.
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 #110 on: October 30, 2009, 11:34:34 AM »

A NYTimes article “THE RUSSO-GREEK CHAPEL.; A Princely Gift from Russia A Noble Lady of the Imperial Household the Donor An Elaborate and Gorgeous Specimen of Embroidery.” May 15, 1871, mentions in passing “It is Father BJERRING’s wish that it be generally known that the Greek Chapel is a private chapel of the Russian and Greek Legations, and is not open for public worship….there is ordinarily no sermon, and there will not be until the occupation of the new church to be built on Lexington-avenue, plans, &c., for which are expected in a few days. The chaplain, however, cordially invites any orderly and respectable lady or gentlemen…”
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9807E7DF1639EF34BC4D52DFB366838A669FDE
Given the involvement of the Church of Greece via the consulates, it is interesting that they attended Fr. Bjerring's chapel with was under the Russian Church. It also raises questions about the later Greek claims vis-a-via Russian jurisdiction. It is worthy to note that the Greek consul in San Francisco was also involved with the Russian mission there.

This comes in the interesting context of a Russian plan in 1870 to set up a hiearchy, a distinctly AMERICAN hiearchy, across the US, including the parish that GOARCH claims as its cradle in New Orleans:
Quote
On July 19, 1870, a Philadelphia newspaper called the North American and United States Gazette published the following report:

The Russian Ambassador has received instructions from his government that three bishoprics of the Greek Church are to be established forthwith in this country – one at New York, one at New Orleans, and one at San Francisco, in each of which last named places there is already a Greek church and a Russo-Greek priest.

A few days later, the journal Christian Union (7/23/1870) reported on the move of the Russian bishop from Alaska to San Francisco, and on the founding of Bjerring’s chapel in New York City. Citing the Pacific Churchman as its source, the article then stated the following:

New York is expected to be, in time, the seat of a Greek Orthodox Eastern Church arch-diocesan, and of the cathedral church of that hierarchy on the American continent, while New Orleans and San Francisco are to be episcopal seats. It is further stated that Mr. N.L. BJERRING, of Baltimore, a recent convert from the Roman Church, has been selected as one of the Orthodox bishops for this country, and that he has been invited by telegraph, from St. Petersburg, to proceed thither, to be baptized, ordained into the ministry, and be consecrated a bishop.

It’s interesting to read about a plan calling for New York to be the headquarters of an archdiocese; it would be more than three decades before this would actually happen. Also, Bjerring, being married, could not have become a bishop. It’s possible that the Russian Church wasn’t initially aware of this, and did at some early stage consider him a candidate for the episcopacy. It’s also possible that the newspaper reporter misunderstood something.

Anyway, within a few more days, the New York Sun had run a piece on all this. I don’t have the original Sun account, but it was picked up by various papers, including the Cleveland Herald (7/30/1870), the Chicago Tribune (8/1), and Flake’s Bulletin of Galveston, Texas (8/20). This is from the Cleveland Herald’s version:

The Russian Government has decided to establish a Bishopric of the Greek Church in New York.  The fact was made known to a number of Episcopal clergymen by Count Catacazy, the Russian Minister, and the Count recently offered the position of Prelate of the proposed See to the Rev. Samos [the other versions say "James"] Christal, an Episcopal minister, who is understood to have favored the plan of Dr. (now Bishop) Young of uniting the Episcopal and Greek churches. Mr. Christal has, however, declined to accept the office, on the ground that he could not subscribe to the articles of the Seventh Synod of the Greek church, relating to the images and creature worship, and the new Bishopric has not yet been filled.

Two other Bishoprics are to be established by the Russian Government, one in San Francisco and the other in New Orleans, but the candidates have not yet been named.

Finally, in October, a correction of sorts began to appear. From the Christian Advocate (10/10/1870; the same appeared in the San Francisco Bulletin on October 29):

The Russian Government does not contemplate sending Bishops of the Greek Church to form dioceses in this country. Greek Church communicants are too few to require them, and these few, it seems, do not desire foreign Bishops.

http://orthodoxhistory.org/?p=1163

It is interesting the mention of foreign bishops, as the only candidates mentioned were US citizens. Since San Francisco did receive its bishop, and the Russian Church did set up its consular chapel in New York city under the Danish born US citizen (and non-Russian/Greek speaking) Fr. Bjrerring, that leaves New Orleans as the source of the problem.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 11:49:23 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
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 #111 on: October 30, 2009, 11:38:08 AM »

^
You came up with much more than the start of the modern interpretation of Canon 28. The work that you provided a link to is an indictment of, in descending order of culpability, the patriarchate of Constantinople, the Russian Church, and the nationalistic aspirations of the people who were once part of the Rum Milliyet.

I don't agree with the order: Fortescue is quite a Russophobe, and basically says only the CoG is worse.  What I particularly like of Fortescue's statements is that Russian Orthodoxy has interest and thrives only where the Czar's and his interests are: the problem is our little patch of earth here-Alaska, where the majority of the conversions happened after the Russians left, and the US, where the Czar had his name and that of the Imperial family removed from the commemorations in the Church here (while he was still paying a lot of the bills) and replaced with that of the President of the United States.  And in the Middle East, besides the Phanariots, we can't complain.

But yeah, I laugh every time I hear how the OCA is not mature enough for autocephaly and needs the guidance of the Mother Churches.  LOL.  Look at the mess they were (and sometimes, still are).

Franz Joseph  was not the benevolent master that Fortescue makes him: the Czech and Slovak Church produced its martyrs for Orthodoxy before WWI.  Nor was state influence as bad among the Orthodox as he makes it: the Church played a major role in the formation of Serbia and Romania, along with Bulgaria.  And there was a stream running deep below the Czar, which bubbled up in the council of 1917. Were that there was a return.


Quote
I am not happy to say that this work helps to confirm my thesis (see my last two posts on the subject). For the Orthodox Church to recover, all of its components must start to put their faith far above their race and ethnicity--not only to shed the shackles of centuries-long corruption by association with earthly powers but also to become again what she was in the beginning.

If it were only that simple.

I remember Fr. Pat pointing out that we aren't, according to the Bible, naked in heaven.  We don't go back to that innocence in Eden even when we enter Paradise (we wear white linen. Yes, it's a symbol).  In a sense the Protestants are right, there is a pre and post Constantine Church.  The pentarchy etc. is something that won't go away, nor should it.  What should stop is having it be the be all and end all of ecclesiology.

In many ways, what is going on in America, a more conciliar Church (by necessity), more independence from the state (only here is that the case), more shepherding, less administrating, by bishops (though we have some of that too).  The North American Church does have something to offer the Catholic/Universal Church that the Mother Churches cannot.



Would you concur with the following description in the Wiki? "He (Fortescue) was, however, a natural product of his times, and his treatment of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches was sometimes tainted by his ultramontanist tendencies (although he held a very negative opinion of the Roman Curia)."

Also, even though he was very biased, this Catholic priest was not a simpleton, and was able to find sufficient number of facts to draw conclusions from. I think it is scandalous that these facts existed in the first place and I am not reticent in condemning the perpetrators, even though they are the ruling institutions and hierarchs of fellow Orthodox jurisdictions. I think that the Greek (CoG and the EP) and Russian Churches are the guiltiest ones in this regard, even today. I agree that we do have a chance in North America.

I agree that Forescue was definitely well informed about Orthodoxy politics, intrigues etc. so his interpretations  I don't think are slander, in that they are interpretations of fact, not fabrications.
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 #112 on: November 05, 2009, 01:28:37 PM »

I've come across this interesting tidbit, the "history" of the SF Greek Cathedral, one of the founders of the GOANSA:
Quote
ANGRY AT THE CZAR

_______________


Greeks Will Not Attend the Russian Church To-Day.

_______________


LOYALTY TO MOTHER COUNTRY.

ANOTHER CHURCH MAY BE FORMED.

The bitter and unrelenting war that is now being waged between Greece and Turkey has caused a serious breach in one church in this City and will result in the formation of another within a short time.

The loyal Greeks of this City have always attended the Russian cathedral, presided over by the Right Rev. Bishop Nicholas, and which is under the control of the Russian orthodox church.

This church is supported the world over by the Russian Government, and the Great White Czar is its head and mainstay.

Therein lies the trouble in this City. The Pan-Hellenic Society of San Francisco, of which Mitchell Vanvales, the Washington-street commission merchant, is the president, numbers about 150 members, and it has been the custom for them to attend Easter services in a body. The recent actions of the Czar, however, in the trouble between their country and the land of the Sultan have decided the majority to remain away from the annual services that take place to-night.

They think that the ruler of the Russias has shown a decidedly anti-Greek spirit and they cannot consistently show respect for him by attending his church.

The Easter services of the Greek Catholic church are peculiar and have a particular significance. Shortly after midnight of the Saturday preceding Easter Sunday the Bishop mounts the pulpit and kisses the cross. Then the priests follow him kissing the cross and then the Bishop and the congregation brings the ceremonial to a close by kissing first the cross, then the Bishop, third the priests and lastly hold a general kissing bee all around.

This signifies "peace on earth, good will to men," and local Greeks think it would be farcical in view of the present condition of affairs. They have nothing against the Bishop, in fact he is very popular with most of the Greeks, but they have a grievance against the mainspring of the church and will remain away from the institution under his control.

Mitchell Vanvalos said yesterday that the Hellenic Mutual Benevolent Society, of which he is a president, as a body would not attend the Easter services at the cathedral.

"Some of the members may feel like going," he said, "and no one will object if they do, but it would not be fitting in view of the Czar’s actions toward our mother country to go as a society.

"We do not recognize the Russian cathedral as our church and have merely attended there because we have no church of our own.

"I know one thing, however, and that is that the Greeks of San Francisco will have a church of their own as soon as the society is in a financial condition to build one and can get a priest out from Greece."
The San Francisco Call, Saturday, April 24, 1897, p. 14:5
http://www.holy-trinity.org/history/1897/04.24.call.html
The article has more on the Greek war effort, that is, for Greece, joining the Greek army etc. (I'm not sure the legal reprecussions at the time on US citizenship).

By way of comparison and contrast:
Just an interesting bit from the Russian Mission in 1897:
Quote
The multiethnicity of our parish was the reason for last year's visit to San Francisco of the rector of the Syrian-Arab mission in New York, Archimandrite Raphael [Hawaweeny], who satisfied the spiritual needs of the Arabs here. This year we were visited by the rector of Galveston mission, Archimandrite Theoclytos [triantofilides; Cathedral rector in 1898-90]. In San Francisco, on the fourth Sunday of Great Lent, Archim. Theoclytos, assisted by Priest D. Kamnev and Hieromonk Sebastian, served Divine Liturgy in Greek; then he traveled to Seattle and Wilkinson in order to perform divine services and private rites there. On March 25, Greek Independence Day, Archimandrite Theoclytos served Liturgy in San Francisco together with His Grace; on this day the church was filled almost exclusively with Greeks
http://www.holy-trinity.org/history/1897/05.01.RussAmOrth.Mess.html

Btw, the same mentions:
Quote
During Gr. Lent, as the readers know, His Grace visited Fort Ross...
« Last Edit: November 05, 2009, 01:35:24 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 #113 on: November 12, 2009, 06:19:53 PM »

The odd just got odder. I wonder if those challenging the EP imposing his charter knew of this.

Matthew Namee on Orthodox History posted
http://orthodoxhistory.org/?p=1240#comment-328
a link to the special legislation enacted in 1905 to incorporate Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral, "The Cathedral of all of Hellenism in America"
http://books.google.com/books?id=vymxAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA2120&dq=%22constantine+g.+vlachos%22&as_brr=1#v=snippet&q=%22constantine%20g.%20vlachos%22&f=false

In pertinenent part, the legisltion states:

Quote
A further object is to distinguish the said “The Hellenic Eastern Orthodox Church of New York” from the so-called “Greek Church of the Eastern Confession” by which title the church of Russia and the church of Greece in general have been known, although the Greek church has been separated from the Russian since the year eleven hundred, anno domini.

The extremely interesting points are that they want to distinguish themselves from not only the Church of Russia, but also the Church of Greece. As both are autocephalous Orthodox Churches, then and now, linked only in the diptychs, it would seem that the “Greek Church of the Eastern Confession” would mean the autocephalous primates in the Orthodox diptychs. So they were creating a body “The Hellenic Eastern Orthodox Church of New York” as a free lance parish, seperate from the diptychs, as there is no mention of the EP, the one who supplied the priest when Holy Trinity split from Anunciation.

(btw, I wonder even if this act is even constitional: “we are told that the present Moscow Patriarchate is not the true superior church of the American communicants. The vicissitudes of war and revolution which have beset the Moscow Patriarchate since 1917 are said to have resulted in a discontinuity which divests the present Patriarch of his authority over the American church. Both parties to the present controversy agree that the present Patriarch is the legitimately chosen holder of his office, and the account of the proceedings and pronouncements of the American schismatic group so indicates. Even were there doubt about this it is hard to see by what warrant the New York legislature is free to substitute its own judgment as to the validity of Patriarch Alexi’s claim and to disregard acknowledgment of the present Patriarch by his co-equals in the Eastern Confession, the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem,…These considerations undermine the validity of the New York legislation in that it enters the domain of religious control barred to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94 at 125-6)

We have not such thing in the Orthodox Church as a free lance parishes: parishes only exist in Dioceses, Dioceses only exist with a bishop, bishops exist only in synods, synods only exist with primates who are commemorated by their co-equals in the dipytchs. Seeking legal recourse to the secular authority (something strictly forbidden by canons IV and VI of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea I and XII of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, stating that a bishop must be deposed for mere attempt ) to take Holy Trinity out of administration of the Orthdoox Church, makes a nice Protestant parish, but not an Orthodox one.

How then could Holy Trinity accept the Tomos of 1908 and the authority of Archb. Meletios? The trust’s terms was specifically and explicitely to distinguish it from the Church of Greece, how could it submit to it?  as in Watson v. Jones 80 U.S. 679 at 772-4 the US Supreme Court ruled “Individuals may dedicate property by way of trust to the purpose of sustaining and propagating definite religious doctrines, and it is the duty of the court to see that the property so dedicated is not diverted from such trust,” the finding “Where the local congregation is itself a member of a much larger and more important religious organization and is under its government and control and is bound by its orders and judgments, its decisions are final, and binding on legal tribunals” of no avail, as the incorporation specifically distinguishes Holy Trinity from the Orthodox hiearchy in the diptychs and the CoG, and Carrier v. Carrier, 226 N.Y. 114 at 125 established that “The court has jurisdiction to remove a trustee who has violated or threatens to violate his trust.”

So, besides the canoical problems of the claims of the Tomos of 1908 interring in the Diocese of another Church, the deposed status of Meletios at the time and defrocked status of Bp. Alexander at the time, we have the legal problem that Holy Trinity was legally estopped by its own incorporation to be incorporated by the 1922 charter as the seat of GOANSA’s primate.

So why did they do it? In defiance of the canonical bishop in North America, St. Tikhon, whom they threw out of their Church the year before:
It seems that according to the state of New York, there was no Orthodox jurisdictional disunity, at least from October 1, 1895, when its Religious Corporations Law took effect (sect. 111), which states in pertinent part:


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 #114 on: November 14, 2009, 11:40:17 AM »

The Odd gets odder still.

I see a snippet on "The History of the Greek Church in America in Acts and Documents by Paul G. Manolis"
http://books.google.ro/books?id=Y8g0AAAAMAAJ&dq=Laws+of+the+state+of+New+York+Archdiocse+North+and+South+America&q=corporation+law
which seems to show that the GOANSA Charter of 1922 was incorporated under article 15 of the New York Religious Corporations Law.

The problem is, that as best as I've been able to ascertain so far, article 15 of said law when the charter was "incorporated" read thus:
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 #115 on: November 14, 2009, 12:47:06 PM »

The Odd gets odder still.

I see a snippet on "The History of the Greek Church in America in Acts and Documents by Paul G. Manolis"
http://books.google.ro/books?id=Y8g0AAAAMAAJ&dq=Laws+of+the+state+of+New+York+Archdiocse+North+and+South+America&q=corporation+law
which seems to show that the GOANSA Charter of 1922 was incorporated under Section 15 of the New York Religious Corporations Law.

The problem is, that as best as I've been able to ascertain so far, section 15 of said law when the charter was "incorporated" read thus:

Sorry, computer problems.


Section 15 of the New York Religious Corporations Law:

Quote
[CHAP. 723 Of 1895.]
The Religious Corporations Law.


Article I. Provisions applicable to religious corporations generally


§ 15. Property of extinct churches—Such incorporated governing body may decide that a church, parish or society in connection with it or over which it has ecclesiastical jurisdiction, has become extinct, if it has failed for two consecutive years next prior thereto, to maintain religious services according to the discipline, customs and usages of such governing body, or has had less than thirteen resident attending members paying annual pew rent, or making annual contribution towards its support, and may take possession of the temporalities and property belonging to such church, parish or religious society, and manage ; or may, in pursuance of the provisions of law relating to the disposition of real property by religious corporations, sell or dispose of the same and apply the proceeds thereof to any of the purposes to which the property of such governing religious body is devoted, and it shall not divert such property to any other object. The New York Eastern Christian Benevolent and Missionary Society shall be deemed the governing religious body of any extinct or disbanded church of the Christian denomination situated within the bounds of the New York Eastern Christian conference ; and the New York Christian Association, of any other church of the Christian denomination, and any other incorporated conference shall be deemed the governing religious body of any church situated within its bounds. By Christian denomination is meant only the denomination especially termed " Christian," in which the Bible is declared to be the only rule of faith, Christian their only name, and Christian character their only test of fellowship, and in which no form of baptism is made a test of Christian character. (As amended by chap. 336 0/1896, § 6; chap. 337 of 1896 and chap: 238 of 1897, § 1.)
http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&pg=PA3559&id=CsYnAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q=&f=false
"General laws of New York containing all amendments to the close of 1899" By New York (State)., Edward Le Moyne Heydecker, Vol 3, p. 3559.

It should have incorporated (and we can see why it did not) under section 50:
Quote
ARTICLE III
Special Provisions For The Incorporation 'and GovernMent Of Roman Catholic And Greek Churches.

Section 50. Incorporation of Roman Catholic and Greek churches. 51. Government of incorporated Roman Catholic churches.

§ 50. Incorporation of Roman Catholic and Creek churches. —An unincorporated Roman Catholic church, or an unincorporated Christian Orthodox Catholic church of the Eastern Confession, in this state may become incorporated as a church, by executing, acknowledging and filing a certificate of incorporation, stating the corporate name by which such church shall be known and the county, town, city or village where its principal place of worship is, or is intended to be, located.

A certificate of incorporation of an unincorporated Roman Catholic church shall be executed and acknowledged by the Roman Catholic archbishop or bishop, and the vicar-general of the diocese in which its place of worship is, and by the rector of the church, and by two laymen, members of such church who shall be selected by such officials, or by a majority of such officials.

A certificate of incorporation of an unincorporated Christian Orthodox Catholic church of the eastern confession shall be executed and acknowledged by the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, and the consul-general of Russsia to the United States, then acknowledged and received as such by the United States.  On filing such certificate such church shall be a corporation by the name stated in the certificate.

§ 51. Government of incorporated Roman Catholic and Greek churches.—The archbishop or bishop and the vicar-general of the diocese to which any incorporated Roman Catholic church belongs, the rector of such church, and their successors in office shall, by virtue of their offices, be trustees of such church. Two laymen, members of such incorporated church, selected by such officers or by a majority of them, shall also be trustees of such incorporared church, and such officers and such laymen trustees shall together constitute the board of trustees thereof. The two laymen signing the certificate of incorporation of an incorporated Roman Catholic church shall be the two laymen trustees thereof during the first year of its corporate existence. The term of office of the two laymen trustees of an incorporated Roman Catholic church shall be one year. Whenever the office of any such layman trustee shall become vacant by expiration of term of office or otherwise, his successor shall be appointed from members of the church, by such officers or a majority of them. No act or proceeding of the trustees of any such incorporated church shall be valid without the sanction of the archbishop or bishop of the diocese to which such church belongs, or in case of their absence or inability to act, without the sanction of the vicar-general or of the administrator of such diocese.

The envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, and the consul-general of Russia to the United States, acknowledged and received as such, and their successors in office shall, by virtue of office, be the trustees of every incorporated Christian Orthodox Catholic church of the Eastern Confession in this state. The trustees of any such church shall have power to fix and change the salary of the rector and his assistant, appointed or commissioned according to the rules and usages of the denomination to which such church belongs.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2009, 01:00:44 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 #116 on: December 16, 2009, 01:04:06 PM »

Prior to the Charter of 1922, Met/Archb./EP Meletios depended on another document, the Tomos of 1908, for his "authority" in the New World.  I recently came across in Échos d'Orient, Volume 11, an account of the lead up to the issuing of that document, which I reproduce in full:
Quote
THE GREEK COMMUNITIES OF THE DISPERSION

With the Jews and the modern Italians, no people has ever migrated as far as the Greek people. From time immemorial, the allure of the sea, the taste for commerce and love of adventure had pushed the Greeks to emigrate, to scatter throughout the shores of the Mediterranean lake prosperous colonies, which gradually supplanted the Phoenician and Carthaginian competitors and created for long one of the most brilliant civilizations. The cities in the interior, Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, to Persia and Arabia, they were also inhabited by Greeks and Hellenized very quickly.

The same phenomenon of immigration is reproduced before our eyes. Each year, especially before the age of military service, young Greeks by the thousands abandon the heaven so laughing and the soil so thin of the fatherland, to go seek his fortune elsewhere. The human tide is going today in preference to the United States. The year 1902 saw from 11, 490 Greeks to the port of New York. The years 1903, slightly more than 13,700. For the general census of Hellenic subjects worldwide, which the government of Athens is in the process of conducting at this moment, if I am well informed, sends in America a 130,000 registration sheet. No doubt this figure is well below the number of people to register.

The United States is not the only ones containing Greek colonies. Not mentioning the Greeks living on Ottoman territory, one meets everywhere, mainly in large industrial and commercial centers, even some of their colonies, such as Venice, which already has several centuries of existence. However, if, from the civil point of view, the emigrants very easily adopt their new country-without abandoning the rest, not any more than the Jews, of their own race-under the religious-relationship it is not the same. Orthodox in religion, they do not want at any price, with very few exceptions, to go to the Catholic and Protestant churches of the countries that deign to receive them. They therefore have churches and chapels for them for the celebration of their offices and their liturgy, they possess the Greek priests for them as if they were still living in the Hellenic Kindgom or the Ottoman Empire.

Who governs these priests, these churches and the faithful, from the canonical point of view? A serious issue, which has been studied for a long time, no one has come to be any solution. There is, in effect, outside the Hellenic kingdom of the church, the four old patriarchs and the church of Cyprus, no constituted Greek Orthodox hierarchy.

The Russians definitely have in North America the Diocese of the Aleutian Islands, whose primate lives in San Francisco and is also assisted by two Auxiliary Bishops: they possess even a bishop in Japan and are going to establish another in Rome for the West[ern Europe], but while being brothers in religion, while having the same liturgical rite, the Greeks never opt to attend the Russian offices and especially to be dependent on a Muscovite bishop.

With the Russians, we must further except the Church of Cyprus, which does not count any more, those of Jerusalem and Alexandria, which hardly count, at least for the topic at hand, that of Antioch, who already has an Arab bishop, Raphael,  Auxiliary of the Russian bishop of San Francisco. All these churches once set aside, there remains at presence the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Holy Synod of Athens.

Between these two churches that struggle is incurred, on the subject of jurisdiction exercised over the Greeks of the diaspora or dispersion. Athens wants everything, Constantinople, although very disposed to concessions, desiring, however, to keep something. Who will win?).

On October 30/November 12, 1907, was read before the Holy Synod of Constantinople a report presented on this matter by the Metropolitan of Nicomedia, Pelagonia and Grevena. He concludes, based on the holy canons-which one does not quote-that all churches and Greek communities abroad, not included in the constituency of an Orthodox autocephalous Church are dependent on the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  For the success of this project, the Comission has been of the opinion that one should write to the sister autocephalous Churches to ask the Ecumenical Patriarchate for formal consent for the appointment of the ecclesiastical [authorites], charged with their annexes abroad. In this case, the Ecumenical patriacat would have no right to refuse, it would, in short, be a mere formality, but that still imposes the recognition of the patriarchal jurisdiction over all Greek communities of the dispersion [i.e. Diaspora].

His All-Holiness Patriarch Joachim III has not been of this opinion. He proposes that, in Europe at least, things remain in the [present] state, communities continue to depend throughout on their own churches. Regarding the Greek communities in America, they would come directly under the Holy Synod of Athens. After a discussion engaged on this idea, it was decided that the Commission report and the opinion of the patriarch would be reproduced and distributed to members of the Holy Synod, which should study the question in their particular.

The next day after the reading of the minutes, the patriarch clarified his ideas and requested that the Venetian colony come under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as it still intends to establish there a high school of theology for young people who have completed their studies at the seminary of Halki. [That is how] things are for the moment.
http://books.google.com/books?id=1B_SAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA55&dq=Echos+d'orient+commautes+grecques+de+la+dispersion&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Interesting how the commission invoked the canons, but did not quote them.  The Tomos of 1908 does the same.

On the Church of Cyprus not "count[ing] any more," the same issue of Echos d'orient (p. 172) deals with why: it had been without a primate for sometime, in a dispute which drew in Constantinople, Alexandria and Jerusalem in the solution.  And who was, according to the account, in the midst of that at the highest levels?  Meletios Metaxakis (in the French "Métaxakès").
http://books.google.fr/books?id=1B_SAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA172&dq=M%C3%A9taxak%C3%A8s&cd=8#v=onepage&q=M%C3%A9taxak%C3%A8s&f=false
« Last Edit: December 16, 2009, 01:05:08 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
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,036



« Reply #117 on: December 16, 2009, 06:27:36 PM »

Wow, thanks so much for this.  I've never seen documentation related to the actual "Tomos."  It's particularly interesting that the Ecumenical Patriarchate acknowledges the Russian Church's diocese in America, does not specifically dispute its authority, but knows that the Greeks in America weren't acknowledging it. The purpose of the Tomos, based on this background, seems primarily to be pastoral concern of the emigrants. This is most revealing.  Never-the-less, it is surprising that they didn't feel the need to consult with the sister Holy Orthodox Churches, as the implementation of the Tomos would affect other Orthodox immigrant faithfull, especially the Church of Russia, though, as I recall, pan-Orthodox relations were perfunctory in that era.

Yet, there is no reference or allusion to the Young Turks, who I have read promoted the need for the Tomos of 1908, as the Greeks in America were protesting the Ottoman oppression of the Greeks in Turkey. The Synod may have felt it inappropriate to make mention of the political pressure.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2009, 06:41:07 PM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

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


WWW
« Reply #118 on: December 16, 2009, 06:51:24 PM »

Quote
With the Jews and the modern Italians, no people has ever migrated as far as the Greek people. From time immemorial, the allure of the sea, the taste for commerce and love of adventure had pushed the Greeks to emigrate, to scatter throughout the shores of the Mediterranean lake prosperous colonies, which gradually supplanted the Phoenician and Carthaginian competitors and created for long one of the most brilliant civilizations. The cities in the interior, Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, to Persia and Arabia, they were also inhabited by Greeks and Hellenized very quickly.

Is it fair to say that the above document already viewed the USA as a "colony" akin to the other places of antiquity.  Note the comparison of Greeks to Jews and Italians; not Irish and certainly not the Anglo-Saxons.
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 #119 on: April 12, 2010, 12:00:35 AM »

I've been looking over the GOANSA Charter of 1922 and noticing some things:
Quote
Article I
A religious Organization, under the name of Greek Archdiocese of North and South America, is hereby established, for the benefit of Christians who dwell here, belong to the Holy Orthodox Eastern Church and have as their liturgical language, either exclusively or principally the greek [sic] language, which the Holy Gospels and the other books of the New Testament were written in.

This is rather interesting, as when this was being chartered, Arch/EP Meletios had already made his claims of universal jurisdiction.  Since the Russians, the Aleuts, Tlingit, etc, the Carpato-Rus, the Bulgarians, the Romanians, did not have Greek, either exclusively or principally, as their liturgical language, and the Arabs had just recently shaken Greek off and were nerely exclusively Arabic and English in North America, it begs the question, what was the status, according to those who put the GOANS 1922 Charter together?

Quote
Article II
The purpose of this Church is to build a religious and moral life for the Greeks and those of Greek descent Orthodox American citizens, founded upon the Holy Write, the rules and the Canons of the Holy Apostles and of the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the ancient and undivided Church, as they are interpreted in the practice by the Great Church of Christ in Constantinople.

Now this is rather odd, as the "Great Church of Christ in Constantinople" has nearly half a century earlier interpreted the stating of the purpose of a Church based on nationality and descent, interpreted as the heresy of phyletism.  But then, those were Bulgarians doing it in Bulgaria, not Greeks in North America. Roll Eyes

Quote
Article III Administrative Subordination
The Greek Archdiocese of North and South America, by canonical and historical right, functions under the Supreme Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Supervision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Now this is rather an odd claim, as the EP had nothing to do with the founding of neither the first Orthodox nor Greek Orthodox parishes in North America (I'm not sure of a single Greek parish in South America at the time, let alone a Greek bishop).  At the time of this Constitution, not a single bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate had set foot in North or South America: the deposed "Bishop" Alexander was CoG, as was "Archbishop" Meletios. Canonical right, well, this thread deals with that.

Quote
Article IV Administrative Division
The entire Archdiocese is made up of four Episcopal Districts.
1. New York.  This comprises the states of....[sic, in the Greek the states and cities are listed]
2. Boston.  This comprises the states of....
3. Chicago.  This comprieses the states of....
4. San Francisco.  This comprises the states of....
The New York Episcopal District has the position of an Archdiocese and has as its head the Archbishop of America.  The three remaining Districts are Dioceses and each of them has its own Bishop, having as his pastoral title that of the seat of his Diocese.
Of course, this is quite interesting, as none of these "dioceses" had or had ever had a Greek bishop.  The deposed Bishop Alexander defrocked from the CoG was the only Greek bishop around.  Of course no. 1 had had her Orthodox Archbishop for over two decades, no. 4. had its first Orthodox bishop over half a century before, and 2 and 3 had local episcopal oversight for decades. But they were Russians, Arabs and other non-Greeks and evidently didn't count.
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
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,036



« Reply #120 on: April 12, 2010, 11:39:04 AM »

What are you expecting in terms of a reply here, at this time?  What is the point of writing the analysis and commentary you provided on April 11, 2010? 
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
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 #121 on: April 12, 2010, 12:14:39 PM »

What are you expecting in terms of a reply here, at this time?  What is the point of writing the analysis and commentary you provided on April 11, 2010? 

I was reminded of this by the recent discussion over the present occupant of one of those original chartered sees, Boston and the goings on there.
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
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,036



« Reply #122 on: April 12, 2010, 04:03:42 PM »

OK, your point is made. I am of the opinion that arguing over which church had precedence or jurisdictional rights over the faithful in America is not productive at this time, on the eve of the convening of the North and Central American Regional Episcopal Assembly, but the currently pending directive of the Holy Metropolis of Boston, which calls for a refrain in relations by its clergy with those of the OCA, due to the presence and residency of an OCA bishop in the Boston area, in my opinion, does merit refutation at this time.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2010, 04:13:26 PM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
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 #123 on: April 12, 2010, 05:13:39 PM »

OK, your point is made. I am of the opinion that arguing over which church had precedence or jurisdictional rights over the faithful in America is not productive at this time, on the eve of the convening of the North and Central American Regional Episcopal Assembly, but the currently pending directive of the Holy Metropolis of Boston, which calls for a refrain in relations by its clergy with those of the OCA, due to the presence and residency of an OCA bishop in the Boston area, in my opinion, does merit refutation at this time.
The two are somewhat intertwined. I have nothing against taking advantage of vacancies, for instance, the OCA not naming a successor to Bishop Job of blessed memory and instead letting the Serbian Bishop Christopher take over the see (the Russian diocese had such plans for Chicago before the revolution), and moving +Melchizedek elsewhere, etc.  In this case, because of the importance of Boston to the Albanian Orthodox, however, Bishop Nikon shouldn't be the one going, something I'm sure Met. Methodius and I disagree on.
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
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,036



« Reply #124 on: April 12, 2010, 05:26:55 PM »

You're way head of them.  This type of consideration won't be forthcoming for years.  They need to start coordinating their work nationally, regionally, and locally, providing opportunities for working together among the jurisdictions, like the opportunities we receive through support for IOCC, building a consensus for unified administration in North America, first.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
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 #125 on: May 25, 2010, 01:40:14 PM »

I thought I had posted these sources contempory to the founding of the 1922 Charter, but evidently not:

I just came across a near contemporary account (1922) of “The Greeks in America” which sums up the scattered circumstances of Bishop Alexander’s position, what he was doing, and what Archb. Alexander might have intended with his recognition:
“Supervision of the churches.—The Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople, constituting the highest authority in the Greek church, claimed and had the right of founding and supervising churches in America. It transferred, however, this right to the Holy Synod of Greece in 1908. Until recently, the whole matter of the organization and supervision of the Greek churches was ill-defined and neglected and Congregationalism reigned supreme in an episcopal church. Individuals organized a community, owned property and found a priest to carry on the religious services, as independent bodies. Some secured their priests through the patriarchate and others from the Synod of Greece. There have been cases of individuals unconnected with either, and without proper credentials of ordination, acting as priests, in isolated colonies or communities….
“Organization of the churches.—In 1918 Archbishop Meletios Metaxakis, then Metropolitan of Athens and Primate of Greece, accompanied by other prominent ecclesiastics, visited the United States. Plans were then laid down for the organization and systematization of the church work in America. The plan provided for an archbishop, probably with seat at Washington, D.C., and two or three bishops with New York, Chicago, Lowell or San Francisco as their respective seats. There were financial and other difficulties in carrying it out, the main one being how to harmonize the right of jurisdiction and administration by the church of Greece, an established and state church, over congregations constituted as corporate bodies and holding property in accordance with the laws of the United States. Ultimately there will doubtless be an Independent Greek Orthodox Church of America as in various patriarchates, and the national churches of Greece, Rumania, etc.
“Pending further settlement of the organization of the churches, Archbishop Meletios left Bishop Alexander Rodostolou as delegate of the Holy Synod of Greece, to supervise the Greek churches in America. The office of the delegation is at 140 E. 72nd Street, New York. He has visited various Greek communities and is completing plans for the better organization of the work….
“Politics and churches.—Politics continue to have their factional influence even in ecclesiastical matters. The leaders of the Royalists, or the Constantine Party, characterized the delegation as Venizelist and tried to divide the churches on political grounds. Jn general, however the communities were united in acknowledging and respecting the authority of the delegation, in spite of the political views of the individuals, priests, or layman until June, 1921. The fall of Venizelos on Nov. 14, 1920 had far reaching consequences in the church both in Greece and America. The revolutionary government of Venizelos started at Salonica in 1917. The Holy Synod of Greece under the presidency of Metropolitan Theocletos, at the instigation of the Court anathematized Venizelos, not*ior*any spiritual offense or heresy but to discredit him and his act in the eyes of the people. After the exile of Constantine to Switzerland, Venizelos returned to Athens. A special ecclesiastical council of bishops, including those of the new Grecian territories, under the presidency of archbishop Gennadios, Metropolitan of Salonica, found Theocletos and some of his associates guilty in the matter of the anathema, unfrocked them and sent them to monasteries in Crete and elsewhere. Later Archbishop Meletios Metaxakis, Metropolitan of Kition, Cyprus, a Cretan, was called to Athens as Metropolitan and Primate of Greece. On Venizelos’ fall (Nov. 1920) the new Greek Government asked Archbishop Meletios to vacate his palace and seat claiming his appointment was null and void. He yielded, protesting against the interference of the state in affairs of the church, and claiming to be the lawful Metropolitan of Athens. The government restored Theocletos to the Metropolitan throne, ignoring the former action of the ecclesiastical council. Bishop Alexander Rodostolou in America refused to recognize the authority of the Synod and Metropolitan, as they were still under ecclesiastical discipline. The Synod charged him with disloyalty and summoned him to Greece. He refused to obey, saying he would acknowledge fealty only to the Patriarch of Constantinople, the highest authority in the church. The Synod then appointed Germanos Trojanos, bishop of Sparta and Monemvasia, as Synodical Exarch in North and South America. He reached New York in June, 1921. His office is at 12 W. 76th Street, New York City. A part of the priests and communities acknowledge Rodostolou and a part Trojanos as bishop. Each claims a majority. In December, 1921 a majority acknowledged Bishop Rodostolou. The breach widens, churches and communities are divided and the effect is depressing on the spiritual life of the church. In April, 1921, Archbishop Meletios came to America. He supported Rodostolou. The patriarchate at Constantinople recognized him as head of the Greek Church in America and refused to recognize the Synod in Greece. In November, 1921, Meletios was elected Archbishop of Constantinople and Ecumenical Patriarch. The Royalists or Constantinists refuse to recognize the election as legal. The Venizelists insist it was the most regular patriarchal election in years, and whatever dissensions there were among the bishops, the people of Constantinople were unanimous. The Synod of Greece besides refusing recognition of Meletios charged him with usurpation of the Metropolitan throne of Athens, and starting schism in the churches in America. He was tried in his absence and condemned to be unfrocked and shut up in a monastery in Zanta. Meletios regards his condemnation as a political move by the Court and that the Synod was illegally composed of unfrocked clergymen.
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA125&dq=Meletios+Greek+isle&id=Am12AAAAMAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false
It might be added, that the Ecumenical Throne had been vacant since the end of WWI:
“THE play of politics finally led, just after the armistice in 1918, to the removal of Germanos V., who was suppsed to be unfavorable to the Allies. Dorotheos, Metropolitan Bishop of Brousa, was selected as the locum teiifns, the election of a regular Patriarch being postponed to a more favorable time. When, in March of 1921, Dorotheos died while on a visit to Eng
land, the Metropolitan Nicholas of Caesarea was chosen in his place. There was a growing feeling that the time had come to hold the regular election ; but several deterring features caused it to be postponed till December last.
“THE Patriarch, ever since the conquest by Mohammed II., has been a civil functionary of the Ottoman Government, and the civil head of all the Orthodox Christians of the Ottoman Empire. But since the armistice, nobody has been able with approximate exactness to define what is and what is not the Ottoman Empire.
Another trouble in the election was to bring about a general agreement among the Greeks. Church and State are so inextricably united in the Hellenic mind that party politics necessarily have their influence inside the church. Royalists and Venizelists find it very hard, if not impossible, to agree on ecclesiastical matters, and feeling is bound to run high when such a matter as a Patriarchal election is concerned. The Greek of Constantinople is as much a Hellene as is the Greek of Athens; and while he has no part in the government of Greece, he considers this as merely because he is still ” unredeemed,” and that justifies his being as strong a Venizelist or Royalist as if he were in Free Greece. Nor has the Greek of Athens any right to take part in the election of a Patriarch, who is an Ottoman functionary and has jurisdiction only within the Ottoman dominion ; but your Athens Greek is just as much interested as if he were under the Patriarchal See.
The strange mental somersault by which, after the armistice, the Hellenic people dropped their pilot, Venizelos, and recalled Constantine to power, had the effect of a wet blanket on the Greeks of Constantinople. The latter had banked on Venizelos to continue the work of political redemption till the two great dreams of the past four hundred and fifty years should come true—the Unfinished Liturgy in Saint Sophia should be resumed, and the Closed Gate at the Patriarchate at Phanar on the Golden Horn, closed in sign of mourning at the hanging of the Patriarch Gregory V., in 1821, should be opened once more with rejoicing. Almost to a man, the Greeks of Constantinople are Venizelists. It is natural that in choosing a Patriarch, they should wish one of the party; while this would be the very thing the Hellenic Government would wish to avoid.
[THIS btw is interesting, as the letter refers to the "citizens and former citizens of the Kingdom of Greece" but nothing on Ottoman subjects]
“The choice of a Patriarch was twice postponed, after it had been decided upon; and finally the majority of the electors and their friends became impatient of further delays and made up their minds that the election should be held. December 8th (Nov. 25h, old style) was fixed for the event. The Hellenic Government, though utterly incompetent legally to interfere in ecclesiastical matters outside of Greece, made a last effort by forbidding any of the Bishops in regions occupied by Greece to be present. This, however, could not prevent the holding of the election.
“The law, as laid down by Mohammed the Conqueror, is that this Mixed Council shall nominate three candidates, who shall then be voted on by the eligible Metropolitans ; and this election shall be submitted to the Sultan for his sanction. Should he wish to cancel the election, he may indicate that one of the other two candidates must be elected instead. The further stipulation has been, that the candidates shall always be subjects of the Ottoman Empire.
“It was understood that the favorites among whom the choice lay were the Metropolitans of Amasia, Trebizond. Cacsarca, Smyrna, and Athens, but that the second had not much chance because he was a Royalist sympathizer, and the last-named had no chance because he was a Hellenic subject.
[It would seem that disqualified Meletios in the last election, as he was not an Ottoman subject, as the source the turns to:]
“To add to the illegality of choosing a Hellenic subject as Patriarch, the election was never submitted to the Sultan for confirmation. This is the perfectly natural consequence of the anomalous state of affairs in the city of Constantinple today, where every Greek church flies over it the blue-andwhite flag of Greece, and the Patriarchate has long had no relations at all with the Sublime Porte. Under the martial law control of the Allied Powers, the Greeks can do about as they please in such matters.
“Two steps remained to be taken by the enemies of Meletios. During the same month of December, by order of the Hellenic Government a, so-called Synod was held in Salonica, attended by twenty-nine Metropolitan Bishops, who had also the proxies of nine others; and this Synod declared the election of Meletios illegal, null and void. Among the twenty-nine were the seven who had refused to attend the Holy Synod in Constantinople, and one of these was the chairman of the meeting. Very naturally, the Patriarchate regards this Salonica gathering as utterly unauthorized, and pays no attention to it.
“The other step was taken by the re-enthroned Metropolitan of Athens, in revenge for his own displacement years before by Meletios. On the basis of a message from a bishop in America, he declared that the said Meletios had been guilty of schism and of unlawful communion with heretics (meaning by this the American Episcopal Church), and was therefore condemned to anathematization and to spend the rest of his life in a monastery on one of the Greek islands. This, however, had no effect on the Patriarch-elect, even if it warmed the heart of Theoclitus. Inasmuch as the Hellenic Government has had no chance to seize the person of Meletios, the sentence cannot be carried out.
Consider now the abnormal and uncomfortable position of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Meletios IV. He is a man without a country—condemned to anathema and incarceration in his own land, not only not recogized but cordially hated in the Ottoman dominions. His election was full of irregularities. He is the civil and spiritual head of a large body of subjects of the Turkish Empire, and yet not a subject himself. By the autocephalous Church of Greece, he is sentenced to pass the rest of his life in a monastery prison; yet by his own constituency in Constantinople, he is so adored that beneath his photograph in the official organ of the Patriarchate appeared the words: ” Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.”…Furthermore, the Angora government of Mustafa Kemal is doing its best to nullify his authority by setting up what it calls the “Turkish Orthodox Church,” under the present leadership of a certain Papa Eftim, a priest from the Caesarea region, and requiring the adherence of all Greeks who are Turkish subjects within the Nationalist domains, and insisting that the language of the new body shall be Turkish.
As long as the Allied forces occupy Constantinople, the Patriarch Meletios IV. is safe; and his strong sense of duty will probably make him stick to his post despite all his troubles. Should the Turkish Government regain absolute control of the city, there is little doubt they would wish to hang him, as they did his predecessor of a hundred years ago. Should the Hellenic dream come true, and the Hellenic Government secure control of Constantinople, he would at least be banished to a monastery on a distant island. His one safety seems to be in the continuance of the present situation until the Orthodox Church can become reunited and as a whole recognize his right to the post.”
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA40&dq=Meletios+Greek+isle&cd=2&id=VPwaAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false
So to put the letter of Archb. Alexander’s letter into perspective: He could have recognized Met. Germanos. He could have taken notice of the actions of the Church of Greece. He was not bound to await action of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, a vacant throne to which Bp. Alexander had appealed. Given the jurisdictional disunity of both the Church of Greece and the Patriachate of Constantinople, we cannot conclude that Archb. Alexander “knew that Demoglou represented a jurisdiction other than his own.” Perhaps “Nemolovsky couldn’t have possibly thought that Demoglou was one of his vicars.” It would seem, however, that he intended to co-opt him as one: the status of the Greek jurisdiction of Met. Meletios and Bp. Alexander, at the time of this letter, resembles that of the Romanian and Bulgarian Episcopate at the time of their incorporation into the OCA. Given Archb. Alexander’s designation of Bp. Alexander “as the only valid and canonical head of the Hellenic Mission (for care of the spiritual interests of citizens and former citizens of the Kingdom of Greece)” (despite what the CoG was saying)-far less than the universal claims of Bp. Alexander (as we know from his latter correspondence to Aftimos) and Met. Meletios (as know from this report to the CoG, his press releases, etc.)-it is clear that he was attempting to take advantage of the situation (much like ROCOR’s until the Act of Canonical Communion)) to bring the Greeks into his fold.

This came up to the posting of the letter of the primate of the Russian Archdiocese to the not yet primate of the incipient GOANSA:
Quote
a letter from Archbishop Alexander Nemolovsky — the Russian Archbishop of North America — to his Greek counterpart, Bishop (later Archbishop) Alexander Demoglou, dated November 11, 1921. The letter is included in Paul Manolis’ The History of the Greek Church of America in Acts and Documents, and I have reprinted it in full below:

Most Reverend and Dear Brother in Christ:

After taking counsel and acting accordance with our knowledge and understanding of the Canon Law, we herewith inform you that our interpretation of the duty confronting us in relation to the established intercommunion of our Holy Eastern Orthodox Catholic Communion, we look to you and your Canonical Superiors as the head in America, North and South, of the interests of the Hellenic members of our Holy Faith.

By this, you will therefore understand that until further action by the Oecumenical Patriarchate at Constantinople, the Russian Mission established in America with jurisdiction known as the Archdiocese of the Aleutian Isles and North America, as well as our local American work known as “The American Orthodox Catholic Church” under the immediate direction of the Right Reverend Archimandrite Patrick [Mythen], who is under obedience to us as Archbishop, are in full fellowship and communion with you, as the only valid and canonical head of the Hellenic Mission (for care of the spiritual interests of citizens and former citizens of the Kingdom of Greece).

We beg you to take note of this, our official communication and pray that together under God’s direction, we may work in fraternal harmony in the Apostolic responsibilities resting upon us.

Prayin[g] God’s blessing on you and your work, I am

Fraternally Yours,

ALEXANDER

Archbishop of the Aleutian Isles and North America
http://orthodoxhistory.org/2010/05/the-russian-archbishop-welcomes-the-greek-archdiocese-1921/#comments
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 #126 on: May 25, 2010, 01:45:51 PM »

^ Don't you believe in paragraph breaks? With extra line spacing?








« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 01:46:53 PM by Fr. George » 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 #127 on: June 10, 2010, 04:38:52 PM »

Just came across this, Census bulletin, Issue 101 By United States. Census Office. 11th census, 1890

Quote
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
CENSUS OFFICE,
WASHINGTON, DC, July 2, 1891.
This bulletin, which is the third devoted to statistics of churches, represents all the Catholic bodies which have congregations in the United
States. There are seven of these communions, embracing the Roman Catholic, the Greek Catholic (Uniates), in union with the Holy See, the Russian Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox, the Armenian, the Old Catholic, and the Reformed Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church has congregations in every state and territory of the Union, including Alaska and the District of Columbia. The United Greek Catholics are represented in Pennsylvania, Illinois, New Jersey, and Minnesota; the Russian Orthodox Greek Church, in California and Alaska; the Orthodox Church of Greece, in Louisiana; the Armenian Church, in Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island; the Old Catholics, in Wisconsin; the Reformed Catholics, in New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Illinois.

The following summary of the Catholic bodies gives the number of organizations and church ediflces and halls, with their seating capacity; also the value of church property and the number of or members:...


....Among the six and a quarter million communicants most of the populations of Europe are represented, and religious instruction is provided for them in English, German, Bohemian, Polish, Lithuanian, Hungarian, French, Spanish, Italian, and other languages. The services in the Armenian churches are in the ancient Armenian ; these in the Russian Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox, and the United Greek Catholic churches are in the Greek.

The work of gathering the statistics of churches is under the care of H. K. Carroll, LL. D.

Superintendent of Census.

STATISTICS OF CHURCHES.

BY HENRY K. CARROLL.

This bulletin contains the statistics of the Roman Catholic and all other Catholic bodies historically related to it which are represented in the United States, viz, the Greek Catholic Church (Uniates), which acknowledges the sovereignty of the Pope, the Russian Orthodex Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Armenian Church, the Old Catholic Church, and the Reformed or Converted Catholic Church....

THE GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH (UNIATES).

The Greek Catholic Church, commonly called Uniates, represents a hody quite numerous in Austria, Hungary, and other eastern countrics in Europe. This body is in communion with the Church of Rome, holding, contrary to the other Greek churches of the East, to the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son as well as from the Father, in accordance with the belief of the Latin Church, but maintaining otherwise its ancient discipline, allowing the lower clergy to marry, administering the communion in both kinds (bread and wine) to the laity, and using the Greek language in its ritual, The congregations, whese statistics are given herewith, are not ecclesiastically connected with any of the dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church, and are not therefore included in the preceding tables.

THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH.

The full title of this body is the "Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Oriental Church." It arose in the Middle Ages from the Filioque controversy, there heing a difference of doctrine hetween the eastern and western Christians of Europe concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Western Church maintains that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son ; the Eastern that the procession is from the Father alone. The chief governing body of the Russian branch of the Greek Church is the holy synod at Saint Petersburg. The churches of this faith in California and Alaska are under the ecclesiastical oversight of Bishop Vladimir, of San Francisco, and many of them are supported financially by the imperial government of Russia.

THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH (GREECE).

This is the national church of the kingdom of Greece. It is the same in faith as the Orthodox Church of Russia. It has one chapel in this country, in connection with the consulate of Greece in New Orleans. This chapel is under the care of Archimandrite Misael

TUE ARMENIAN СHURCH.

The Armenian Church of Turkey is separate from hoth the Latin and Greek Catholic churches. As many Armenians have come to this couutry, congregations of them have heen gathered during the past ten years in New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. They have no churches of their own, but meet for worship in chapels owned hy the Protestant Episcopal Church. Their services are held in the Armenian language.
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA40&dq=Religious+census+Greek+Orthodox+1890&cd=1&id=lb_rAAAAMAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false
There are accompanying charts of number of properties, value, seating capacity, communicants.



« Last Edit: June 10, 2010, 05:03:28 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 #128 on: June 10, 2010, 10:28:17 PM »

Some other references,
VISITOR'S GUIDE TO NEW ORLEANS. (1875)
Quote
Greek Church Of The Holy Trinity—Rev. Glegory Yayas, rector. North Dolhonde, between Hospital and Barracks.
http://books.google.com/books?id=BKwJc_SjG3UC&printsec=frontcover&dq=New+Orleans+Greek+Church&source=gbs_similarbooks_s&cad=1#v=onepage&q=Greek&f=false

New Orleans guide By James S. Zacharie (1885)
Quote
Greek Church.

On Dolhonde street near Esplanade street. Take Esplanade and Bayon Bridge cars to Dolhonde street. For admission, apply at Sextants house.

The Greek Church of the Holy Trinity is a small church where services are occasionally held. The ornaments of the altar were presented by the jate Empress of Russia.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZnMzAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA78&dq=New+Orleans+Greek+Church&hl=en&ei=eYcRTN2WCsHflgfM-4zXBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

Historical sketch book and guide to New Orleans and environs: with map ... edited by William Head Coleman (1885)
Quote
THE GREEK CHURCH.

A visit to the Greek Churoh of the Holy Trinity, on Dolhonde near Barracks, will be found interesting. It stands in a little church-yard—a small brick structure, with a bit of a house for the priest, by its side. A Greek flag, at half-mast, hangs from a tall staff by the front door.

The church consists of a small square room, with vaulted ceiling; Its furniture, two reading desks, a baptismal font, the ark, a large cross bearing the crucified Saviour, and two candlestands. The ark resembles a bier supporting a miniature two-story Greek temple. On the upper part is the story of Christ's condemnation, agony, last supper and cruoiflxion. Most notable is the first little picture, wherein Pontius Pilate is to be seen literally " washing his hands " of the whole affair.

The back of the church is separated by a partition on whtoh hang four paintings, singular in their lack of perspective. Two doors, one on either end, holds each a picture, one of St. Michael, the other of Gabriel. Both dance upon clouds, but Gabriel, deprived of his trumpet, waves a bunch of flowers.

Another picture represents Herodias dancing off the head of John the Baptist. It is a curious and very antique picture, and guilty of a strange anachronism, for Herod and the party are represented seated at table.

Midway of the partition is an opening veiled with a banner bearing a picture of Christ partaking of the sacrament; around it in Russian: " He who takes the sacrament never dies."

The baptismal font for babies looks like a magnified hour glass. There is a large one for grown people. Baptism, both for the young and old, is by immersion.

Chairs are brought in by obliging neighbors for the women and the guests. The devout gather candle in hand, and with many genuflections, each piously kisses a sacred spot upon the paintings, the infant Jesus' toe seeming the most popular.

Scarcely a Greek nose was to be seen. Bronzed faces, toil-hardened hands, relieved by shirts of blue and red, plaid and plain, are illuminated by the upheld torches.

The services opening, the men range themselves in single file along the wall, the females and visitors occupying chairs on the other side. The banner is drawn aside, revealing an altar before which stands a priest. His face is Hebraic, his robe, of dark blue and white, fitted on very much after the fashion of Dakota Indians, by a convenient hole in one end. A long scarf of pale blue and white satin hangs over his capacious front.

Concluding a short chant, he comes among the people, lifting the oross, and kissing the wounds upon the body.

After a few more chants and reading of Scriptures, the holy ark, preceded by the priest, is borne out by four strong men, all chanting the Kyrie Meison, "Lord, have mercy upon us."

A long reading of the Scriptures follows, interrupted by admonitions in modern Greek from his reverence to his delinquent clerks.
http://books.google.com/books?id=_NzVAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA121&dq=New+Orleans+Greek+Church&hl=en&ei=Co4RTOb5LcOBlAfy1bHbBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=New%20Orleans%20Greek%20Church&f=false

Chamber's encyclopaedia: a dictionary of universal knowledge, Volume 5 (1890)
Quote
In England a Greek Church has existed since the middle of the 17th century. The periodical emigrations of Greeks to the west, consequent upon each fresh recrudescence of Turkish tyranny, resulted in the formation of a Greek colony in London, which must have been considerable both in numbers and position ; for we find that many young Greeks were sent to Oxford, as a rule to St John the Baptist (Gloucester) Hall, where they replaced the Irish, who, after the establishment of Trinity College, remained in Dublin. A certain Nathanael Conopius, however, was at Balliol, where he first taught the Oxonians to make coffee, and whence he was expelled by the Puritans in 1648. When the Archbishop of Samos, Joasaph Georginos or Georgirenes, had to flee from his diocese, and arrived in England about 1666, he found amongst his co-religionists in London Daniel Bulgaria as priest, but there was no church. He therefore applied to the then Bishop of London, Henry Compton, who befriended him, and who with other English bishops collected a small fund, to which even King Charles II. is said to have contributed, for the erection of a Greek church on a piece of land in Crown Street, Soho Fields, given by the parish of St Martin-in-the-Fields. (See A Description of the Present State of Samos, Nicaria, Patmos, arid Mount Athos, by Joseph Geprgirenes, Archbishop of Samos; Loiid. 1678.) This church, which was dedicated to St Mary the Virgin's Sleep, is still extant, and a marble tablet over the west door bears an inscription in Greek recording these facts, as well as the names then given to Greek Street and Compton Street in the same neighbourhood commemorate those events. The church, which is the one represented in Hogarth's well-known picture of 'Noon,' soon passed to the French Protestant refugees; it was subsequently fitted up as a meeting-house for the Rev. John Rees, and in 1850 it was reconsecrated as an Anglican church, to St Mary the Virgin (Ecclesiologitt, xi. 120). A copy (made about 1760) of the original register, which seems to have perished, of that first Greek community exists in the chapel of the Russian embassy in London (Welbeck Street), and records the fact that when the Archimandrite Gennadius was priest in London, both the church and the community had become ' Greece-Russian.' After the death of Gennadius (February 3, 1737), who was buried in St Pancras' Churchyard, the entries in the register record more and more frequent marriages between English and Greeks, who thus appear to have been absorbed by the indigenous element, their anglicised names which are still to be met with (Rodos, Pamphylos, Lesbos, &c.) confirming the fact. But in the beginning of the 19th century another Greek community sprung up in London by the arrival in 1818 from the island of Chios of three out of the five brothers Ralli, who founded the great firm of that name, and who were soon followed by others of their countrymen. They at first met at a chapel in one of the houses in Finsbury Circus, and in 1847 built a church in London Wall. As the community increased in riches and in numbers, this modest building was replaced in 1879 by a magnificent Byzantine church in Moscow Road, Bayswater, built after the model and bearing the hallowed name of ' Hagia Sophia.' Flourishing Greek churches exist also in Liverpool and in Manchester.

In the United States there are a Greek church in New Orleans and a Russian in San Francisco.
http://books.google.com/books?id=WlYWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA400&dq=New+Orleans+Greek+Church&hl=en&ei=Co4RTOb5LcOBlAfy1bHbBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=New%20Orleans%20Greek%20Church&f=false


The Picayune's guide to New Orleans (1903)
Quote
The Greek Church of the Holy Trinity is on a street known both as Do!honde and Dorgonnis. within viiew of Esplanade Avenue. Services are not held regularly. The ornaments on the altar were presented by the late Empress of Russia.
http://books.google.com/books?id=zpI6E4v9sgIC&pg=PA58&dq=Picayune's+guide+New+Orleans+Creek&cd=1#v=onepage&q&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
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 #129 on: July 06, 2010, 11:50:07 PM »

Just came across this: it from the Alexandrine "Pharos" the Pope and Patriarch's official organ:
http://books.google.com/books?id=YqpCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA6&dq=%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%AC+%CF%84%CE%BF+%CF%80%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%AC%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%B3%CE%BC%CE%B1+%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82+%CE%A1%CF%89%CF%83.+%CE%95%CE%BA%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82&hl=en&ei=x9szTLiUKoOinQefrPSIBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

It's a discussion of the Church of Greece in 1908, and it talks a bit about the Tomos of that year.  Here's the Greek with a rough translation.  The last clause is what caught my eye.

Ἕτερον γεγονός ούχ ἥττονος σημασίας,  διὰ τήν έν διασπορᾳ Έκκλησίαν ἰδίᾳ, εἴνε ή λύσις επί τέλους του μεταξύ της Μεγάλης του Χρίστου Εκκλησίας και της Εκκλησίας του Βασιλείου υφισταμένου επί μακρόν εκκρεμούς ζητήματος της εξαρτήσεως των εν διασπορᾳ Εκκλησιών. Από τοΰδε, δήλον δτι, καθ" ά αναφέρει ό «Ιερός Σύνδεσμος» (αρθ. 65, 1908), πάσαι αί έν διασπορφ έκκλησίαι θα θεωρώσιν έκκλησιαστικήν αυτών Αρχήν την Ί. Σύνοδον της Ελλάδος, είς πασαν δε χηρεύουσαν θέσιν θ' άποστέλληται προϊστάμενος υπό της Συνόδου. Οΰτω θα κατορθωδη του διοικητικού τούτου κλάδου της Εκκλησίας ή συστηματοποίησις, ης ή κορωνίς έ'σται πάντως ή σύστασις νέου επισκόπου της εν διασπορφ εκκλησίας, κατά το παράδειγμα της Ρωσ. Εκκλησίας.

Another event of no less importance for the Church in diaspora itself, being at last the solution of the long pending problem between the Great Church of Christ and the Church of the present Kingdom of the administration of the Churches in diaspora. From now on, clearly that, according to what the "Sacred Register" ( Art. 65, 1908) references, all the Churches in diaspora shall look to the Holy Synod of Greece for ecclesiastical authority, but in all bereft of standing will forward their head to the Synod. So will result will set up the systemization of the management of this young shoot of the Church, however the final florish will be setting up a new Bishop of the Church in Diaspora, following the example of the Russian Church.

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 #130 on: December 10, 2010, 06:50:51 AM »

Just was reminded of this, canon IV of Antioch:
Quote
4. If any Bishop, deposed by a Synod, or any Presbyter, or Deacon, deposed by his own Bishop, should dare to perform any act of the liturgy — whether it be the Bishop in accordance with the advancing custom, or the Presbyter, or the Deacon, let it no longer be possible for him to have any hope of reinstatement even in another Synod (or Council), nor let him be allowed to present an apology in his own defense, but, on the contrary, let all of those who even commune with him be cast out of the Church, and especially if after learning about the decision pronounced against the aforesaid, he should dare to commune with them.


Interpretation.

The present Canon decrees that if any bishop be deposed by a Synod (or Council), or if any presbyter or deacon be deposed by his own bishop, and after being deposed he should dare to perform any sacred act, as he was wont to do formerly — the bishop, a prelatical function; a presbyter, that of presbyters; and a deacon, that of deacons — before he has stood trial before a higher ecclesiastical tribunal, any such person, I say, shall no longer have any hope of being acquitted at another Synod, nor any right to offer any defense in their own behalf, since they themselves have turned every decision of a synod against them owing to their having failed to abide by the synod’s decree of deposition, according to c. XXXVII of Carthage. But even any persons that join in communion with those deposed from office, when they are aware of the deposition, are all to be cast out of the Church. See also Ap. c. XXVIII.

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_local_rudder.htm#_Toc72635082

This is on point, as Met. Meletius had been deposed by the entire episcopate of the Church of Greece, and yet he obviously dared to perform several acts of liturgy in the New World
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 #131 on: January 07, 2014, 09:36:50 PM »

The recent publication by the Church of Russia wrongly specifically denies the canonical privileges of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  

When you say "canonical privileges" I assume you mean you can point to a canon somewhere that says the EP alone has final say vis-a-vis autocephaly for local churches.

No I can't, and never have I alleged that the Ecumenical Patriarch has canonical authority to declare a church outside of his immediate jurisdiction autocephalous, although he does have responsibility to convene pan-Orthodox gatherings to address matters of pan-Orthodox concern, matters affecting the Holy Orthodox Churches.

That's not to say I support a Communist controlled church, in a region with unchallenged multiple canonical eparchies in a 50 year period, 46 years after declaring one of its archdioceses (or metropolitan districts) "anathema," reconciling with a secretly negotiated Tomos of Autocephaly, while for the ensuing 43 years maintaining two "representation" districts in the region (with 32 parishes in one of the nations of the region) of the alleged "autocephalous church," which is much smaller than one of the overlapping eparchies.
How about a Muslim controlled Church, in a region with an unchallenged canonical diocese for a 114 years (if not 175 years), 75 years after declaring several of its archdiocese (or metropolitan districts) "anathema," reconciled only by outside pressure of a foreign government (i.e. the Czar's), while switching the jurisdiction under a deposed and defrocked prelate without canonical transfer to another autocephalous Church?

114 years?  I'll buy 53, that's all.
 
How can you buy what I'm not selling?  Facts are facts.

But the canon of limitations specifies 30 years, at most:
Quote
Chalcedon c. 17. As touching rural parishes, or country parishes, in any province, they shall remain in the undisputed possession of the bishops now holding them, and especially if they have held them in their possession and have managed them without coercion for thirty years or more...

Carthage c. 129. It has pleased the Council to decree that if anyone after the (enactment] of the laws causes any region to revert to the catholic unity and holds possession thereof for a space of three years without anyone seeking to take it away from him, henceforth it shall not be taken away from him...

So 53 year provides more than enough.

But then it completely fell apart, could not support itself when the half mil support was dropped by the Russian Imperial government; quite a diocese--after imposing mortgages on several of its parishes, it encouraged its parishes to separate from it administratively due to the law suites of the "Living Church;" even loosing its New York Cathedral to the Bolshevik backed "Living Church!" No parishes; no cathedral, nada.
Sort of like the Greek state today, supposedly the Phanar's support.

They lost the Church to the Bolshevik's because the US Supreme Court gave it to them. Not quite sure how that supports the Phanar's claims.


And they had their Cathedral in SF and in Alaska, and the standing as the Orthodox Church in America that went along with the latter by treaty and the US Constitution.

I don't have a clue about to what you refer "75 years after declaring several of its archdiocese...anathema reconciled by...the Tsar."
The Church of Greece, the Phanar anathematized it, and, when the Greek King after decades gave the Ethnarch an award bestowed by the Church of Greece, His All Holiness kept the medal but replied he knew no Church of Greece-until the Russian Ambassador strongly suggested Wink HAH rethink that.

The Church of Greece reversed its deposition, which was politically inspired---enacted under the Royalist government, of its former primate, after he was elected Ecumenical Patriarch.
Met./Abp./EP/Pope Meletius elevation was politically inspired---enacted under the Repubilcan government, when Met. Meletius had already been expelled from Palestine for trying to depose the rightful Patriarch there.

And no, the rest of the Greek Church refused to recognize Met/Abp/EP/Pope Meletios for a while after his uncanonical election (he had already been deemed canonically ineligible when he tried to get himself elected in 1913.

Btw, the deposition of EP Germanus V was politically inspired with the same inspiration that enthroned Met/Abp/EP/Pope Meletius in Athens and Istanbul.

The Church of Greece dissolved its eparchy of N. & S. America several years after the Ecumenical Patriarchate established the Holy Archdiocese of America in the Spring of 1923; which had been incorporated in New York State in September, 1921.
No, the deposed Abp. Meletios transferred them to himself as the uncanonically elected ethnarch of the Phanar.  We have a thread on the "incorporation."
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