Posted by Al "Moscow's Efforts" were not so evangelical as popular ideas would say. Further, Moscow currently maintains or at least "supports" two of the non-OCA jurisdictions in the US - ROCOR and the Patriarchal parishes. Both of which are seen to be permanent, and contribute to the irregular situation there. And, on a similar note of phyletism, the practice is even embedded in how we receive converts. Heaven forbid that Bertha and Rupert Shwartz should be received into the Church with those names! Nope - they will be encouraged, if not required, to select an "Orthodox Christian" name that will most likely be of traditional ethnic origin. No thought that those two venerable saints of the 8th century might not only be worthy of emulation, but perhaps those saints themselves might have been praying for their namesakes to find the True Faith. Saints Bertha and Rupert are unacceptable due to their ethnicity (simply not mentioned in the "traditional" ethnic based resources). So when Rupert is having lunch with his boss, Angus, and a friend from his parish sees him and says, "Hi Tikhon", and Angus inquires as to what is going on, what impression of our practices will Angus receive? Would he be impressed by a church that rejects saint's names solely due to ethnicity, not actual validity? Would he have to abandon his life long name saint to become Orthodox? Or better yet, how about the priest who told the enquirer "Dominic" that his saint's name simply sounds "too Catholic" for Orthodoxy! And please don't offer the explanation that the new name denotes a new beginning, as that just doesn't hunt. I would doubt that the adult athiests Vasilli Rusnikov or Dimitri Grecopolous would be expected to take on new names at baptism. And, if they asked to be baptized as Rupert and Angus, would that be easily accepted, if at all? Where the rubber hits the road, there is far too much phyletism in Orthodox practice in North America for us to become properly united. Some of it is subtle, but it is there no less. And a Church that embraces a heretical notion, however slight, is not destined for glory!
on 5/2/2009, 2:10 am, in reply to "Re: More Facts"
Message modified by user Al 5/2/2009, 3:35 am
Herman-
Africa was already a partiarchal territory, and the EP was simply responding to needs that Alexandria wasn't able to meet in nations where Alexandria had no physical presence. There weren't the plethora of competing claims, and the EP was simply providing temporary oversight. North America was and is a different situation. Read what Fr Herbel has written:
http://www.ocanews.org/Herbeljurisdiction4.22.09.html
http://www.ocanews.org/news/HerbelResponse5.1.09.html
For all intents and purposes, at least until 1970, if not today, the Orthodox presence in NA was more a "chaplaincy" to existing Orthodox immigrants than any real "missionary" activity. Since this "chaplaincy" was clearly along ethnic lines (even St Tikhon saw a Church of ethnic, non territorial dioceses in the lower 48) the mess was non-canonical from the start. And since the underlying organizational concept, even of St Tikhon, was a cousin, if not the brother of phyletism, the "plan" was tragically flawed, especially since the view was one of ministering primarily to only traditionally Orthodox ethnic groups. There was never a mention of an "ethnic" or "non-ethnic" diocese for the remaining overwhelming portion of the population in NA that wasn't of a traditional Orthodox ethnicity.
Thus we have Orthodox Churches in America, but not an Orthodox Church of Americans. Holding to the romantic and erroneous view that the Russian Church sought to evangelize the lower 48 does not solve the problem, and now, granting the EP primacy in the diaspora won't work either, because of the "human dynamics" that have evolved. And a major contributor to these "dynamics" has been the mis-statements of history. All to often, the term "mission" has been used when it was really a "chaplaincy".
Al
Paros Island, Greece
Responses:
