OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 10:10:37 PM *
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 24538 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 37,483



« 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: 37,483



« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,021



« 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: 37,483



« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,021



« 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: 6,703



« 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: 11,183


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: 37,483



« 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: 6,703



« 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: 37,483



« 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: 6,703



« 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: 6,703



« 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: 37,483



« 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: 6,703



« 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: 37,483



« 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: 6,703



« 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: 37,483



« 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: 37,483



« 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: 37,483



« 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: 37,483



« 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: 37,483



« 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: 37,483



« 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: 37,483



« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,021



« 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: 11,183


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: 37,483



« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,021



« 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: 37,483



« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,021



« 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: 37,483



« 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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,021



« 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: 37,483



« 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: 20,053


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: 37,483



« 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: 37,483



« 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: 37,483



« 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: 37,483



« 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: 37,483



« 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 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.256 seconds with 70 queries.