Posted by Dean Calvert
on 5/2/2009, 1:54 pm, in reply to "Re: More Facts"
Hermie and AL,
Originally posted above to Al, but reposting here in light of your comments. Apologies for the duplication:
************************************************
Al,
Thanks for calling that to my attention. I had seen it originally, but would never have found it.
It's an interesting piece obviously...presenting a little different view than I have read before. However, it sounds as if he has done some research - the comments about the Alaska treaty, for example, I know to be true. I've checked those myself.
To be honest, it does not conflict as much as I might have thought, with what I've read. I have read St. Tikhon's message to Moscow about the Greek church being established in SF. He is correct in that St. Tikhon wished them the best. No distinction seems to have been made by St. Tikhon about canonical vs non canonical.
The "vision" held by St. Tikhon and the actions of St. Innocent presented by the piece are identical to what I have read. I guess the only point of argument may be the degree to which that vision was implemented.
I have read accounts, but have not seen the actual letter, that St. Tikhon requested a Greek bishop from the EP sometime in the 1905-1906 period. This would indicate a little more activity than the piece presents. No response was forthcoming. I've also read that St. Tikhon's vision, which must have been at least partially implemented, was to assign an Arab bishop in Brooklyn (St. Raphael), a Serbian bishop in Chicago, and a Greek bishop at an undetermined location. I've also read accounts about (what appears to have been a fairly famous) action of the Greeks at one parish, I believe it was in New York, to refuse St. Tikhon entrance into their church on a particular Holy Friday. This story has been presented as an example of the dissolution of the unity which once existed. Finally, I've also read accounts, I believe they were from ST. Innocent's biography, that St. Innocent recommended to the Moscow patriarchate that the first thing they should do in America is to get rid of all the Russian speaking clergy! This would be consistent with his comments to the Aleutian natives. When the Aleuts asked St. Innocent how they should behave and act, he told them NOT to imitate the Russian traders in their area - whom he considered the WORST examples of Christians.
As he presents in the opening paragraphs, Fr. Herbel's argument is really that the OCA should not seek to exclude the other jurisdictions from the continent based upon a shaky historical claim that there was unity under the Russian diocese pre-1918. It may sound like I'm splitting hairs, but to be honest, I've never considered that claim particularly relevant. Whether the OCA was here first in Alaska (which I guess no one challenges) or the Greeks in New Orleans has never been of particular interest to me. That always seemed like a silly argument. The argument also gets particularly ridiculous when you consider that the GOA's genesis goes from Athens to Constantinople (which he alludes to as well....bishop from Athens). I don't think a lilly pure pedigree is the answer to what should happen here because no one has one from what I can see.
On the other hand, I have believed a couple of things which this article does nothing to change.
First, that the Russians did a remarkable job in Alaska...their actions there represent a modern day Cyril and Methodios type mission.
Second, St. Tikhon's vision and actions (once again, I guess the degree to which it was implemented may be the point of disagreement) presented THE ROADMAP for the Church in America. One is also left wondering what might have occurred in America were it not for the interruption of support from Russia due to the Revolution there. Fr. Herbel's comments notwithstanding, St. Tikhon's vision seems to be the most logical and practical approach to the reality of Orthodoxy in America...both then and now.
Finally, I also believe that the modern day OCA governance structure (as poorly as it may have been executed) most closely approaches the implementation of that vision. Essentially "locally elected bishops, sitting in synod" is the time tested answer to our problems.
That said, I can certainly understand Fr. Herbel's caution about using St. Tikhon's vision to the exclusion of all others...that's a fair point. On the other hand, one of my issues has always been that I see no one offering alternative "visions" of unity in this country...only a continuation of the status quo. Which always leads me to the fundamental issue - the status quo is essentially heretical and un-Orthodox. Many would obviously argue with that, but I think it continues to be an accurate statement. In the end, St. Tikhon's "vision" presented a path back to traditional Orthodox ecclesiology. Show me another way to get there and I'm game. Talk to me about continuing SCOBA for another 50 years, and I think you're in Alice in Wonderland. Part of a solution is getting the job done within the available resources - money, time, effort. If the patient dies while we're waiting for the solution, my Emergency Room doc friends would say "that's not an acceptable outcome." I'd agree.
In sum, I think the real message of this piece, jurisdictional claims and canonical issues aside, is that we have done a completely miserable job of evangelizing this continent. Perhaps some common sense along with the definition of insanity, ie doing the same things and expecting a different outcome, should be the best evidence that a change is needed.
May God have mercy on us for the mess we have made and continue to allow to exist. I heard a Bulgarian priest say that at a Pan Orthodox vesper in Detroit about 20 years ago, and continue to believe he was accurate.
Thanks again...if we are going to avoid repeating the mistakes in history, a good first step is to understand it...whether we like it or not...the Truth is always a good place to start.
Best Regards
Dean
Responses:
