| Photo: orthodoxcityhermit.com Every religious tradition in the United States is seeing its membership decline. But according to the most recent Pew Study , few Christian traditions are seeing their members head for the doors as quickly as the Orthodox—only 53% of adults who were raised in the Orthodox Church still identify as Orthodox. Professional statisticians will note that the sample size of Orthodox in the Pew study is small, but the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese’s own published statistics on marriages and baptisms over the past forty years suggests that the retention of its younger members is falling dramatically. Is our parochial use of Liturgical Greek part of the problem? As someone who has studied Ancient and Byzantine Greek for the past 25 years, I will be the first to affirm that Greek enables a level of theological nuance unmatched by other languages, especially English. But very few Orthodox in America have the training to navigate the complexity and sophistication of our Liturgical poetry in its original form. Across the United States, GOA parishes vary in their use of language: some are Greek only, some are English only, and most employ some combination of the two, often repeating key elements (biblical readings, the Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer) in both languages. But apart from the sermon, the Greek used is not Modern Greek, it is a form of medieval Greek, composed between the fourth and twelfth centuries.The vocabulary is similar to Modern Greek, but many words are obscure. The grammar and syntactical structure are completely different. To be sure, some aspects of the Divine Liturgy, like the Petitions, are repeated every week, which allows those who attend regularly to follow whether they know any medieval Greek or not. But many hymns and the scripture readings change daily, making them largely incomprehensible, even for fluent Greek speakers. In short, the vast majority of communicants in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese do not understand what is being said or sung at several points in the course of any given service. And it’s not because quality translations do not exist. They do. But for a variety of reasons, priests across the Archdiocese are not using the translations as often as they should. |
| Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology Faculty Statement on the Holy and Great Council Source: Orthodox Christian Network The Faculty of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology fully supports the coming Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church to be held at the Orthodox Academy on Crete June 16-27, 2016. The Faculty affirms the importance of this Council for the life and witness of the Orthodox Church in today’s world. His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew deserves much appreciation and gratitude for his selfless and faithful devotion to the cause of Orthodox unity and Orthodox witness to the Lord and His Gospel. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has acted wisely and judiciously to strengthen the bond of unity and to deepen conciliarity among the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches. He has exercised his own responsibility as the first bishop of the Orthodox Church while not intruding upon the proper responsibilities of other primates or the integrity of the other Autocephalous Churches. In consultation with other primates, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has led the Orthodox Church in addressing common challenges and in giving a united witness to Christ and His saving Gospel. More than fifty years ago, Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras (+1972) envisioned a Council which would bring together representatives from all the Orthodox Churches to strengthen the bonds of unity and to address critical issues facing the Church. He realized that the conciliar tradition had been diminished. He saw that the tragic events and political changes of the 19 th century and the early decades of the 20 th century contributed to isolation and divisiveness among the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches. The first step in this conciliar process was Patriarch Athenagoras’ decision to convene four Pan-Orthodox Conferences between 1961 and 1968. At these meetings, the participants began to identify topics of church life which deserved discussion and common agreement. They began to respond together to the new challenges of dialogue with other churches and confessions. These discussions continued through the 1970s and 1980s. Orthodox bishops and theologians from the Autocephalous Churches actively participated in these meetings. Eventually, they agreed upon ten topics to be thoroughly studied in anticipation of a Holy and Great Council. |
| WASHINGTON (CNS) -- During the week following the pan-Orthodox council, which wrapped June 26 in Crete, Greece, Orthodox clergy in the U.S. reflected on what the council would mean for Orthodox Christians here. Going into the council, the most pressing issue for American Orthodox Christians was the question of the diaspora: how the church’s hierarchy should work in lands that are not traditionally Orthodox, but where different groups of Orthodox Christians now live, like in America and Australia. In these places, various Orthodox churches like the Greek, Russian and Ukrainian coexist, meaning that a city like New York can have 10 bishops from five different Orthodox churches. This current organization conflicts with the Orthodox canon, or law, that there should be only one church authority in each region. The final message and encyclical from the Holy and Great Council made no changes to the current structure but affirmed the importance of the governing episcopal assemblies, which bring together the different bishops in these regions. “The council decided to encourage their (the episcopal assemblies’) continuation until the situation in the various regions matured for future development,” said American Greek Orthodox Father John Chryssavgis, who attended the council. The American assembly, called the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America, is the largest in the world, with almost 60 bishops. Greek Orthodox Father Patrick Viscuso, a member of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, said the affirmation of episcopal assemblies is “actually a wonderful thing.” “Episcopal assemblies are a first step for sorting out the canonical structure of the Church and bringing about canonical normalcy,” Father Viscuso told Catholic News Service in a phone interview from New Jersey. He said the assemblies are helpful in terms of pooling the Orthodox churches’ resources, and that while they won’t eliminate the priority of ethnic identities in the Orthodox Church, they are a step closer to ensuring the church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. |
| Some “Not-So-Obvious” Facts about American Orthodox Christianity Contemporary Issues Last Updated: Feb 8th, 2011 - 05:50:02 Some “Not-So-Obvious” Facts about American Orthodox Christianity May 1, 2010, 10:00 Discuss this article Printer friendly page Source: The Patriarch Athenagoras Orthodox Institute The “Orthodox Church Today” study released by the Patriarch Athenagoras Orthodox Institute (Graduate Theological Union) disproves many stereotypes and provides groundbreaking insights into the life of one of the least known American faith traditions – Orthodox Christianity. With its historical roots in nineteenth century Russian Alaska, today Orthodox Christianity in the USA accounts for about 1,200,000 – 1,300,000 faithful worshipping in 2,200 – 2,300 local parishes (congregations) spread all across the nation. There is no single “American Orthodox Church:” Orthodox Christians in America belong to nearly twenty different Orthodox Churches or “jurisdictions” – the word Orthodox use instead of Protestant “denominations.” The “Orthodox Church Today” is the first national survey-based study of the ordinary parishioners in the two largest Orthodox Christian Churches in America: the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA) and the Orthodox Church in America (OCA). Here are some interesting facts about the American Orthodox Christian community. 1) The common stereotype is that the Orthodox Churches in the USA are “ethnic” Churches of certain immigrant communities. The study shows that this not the case anymore. Nine out of ten parishioners in both GOA and OCA are American-born. Further, today, more than one-quarter (29%) of the GOA and a majority of OCA (51%) members are converts to Orthodoxy – persons born and raised either Protestants or Roman Catholics. 2) Not all Orthodox are equally “Orthodox.” The study found that the gaps between the “left” and the “right” wings in American Orthodoxy are wide and that American Orthodox Christians are deeply divided among themselves in their personal “micro-theologies.” Answering the question “When you think about your theological position and approach to church life, which word best describes where you stand?” the relative majority (41%) of church members preferred to be in the safe “middle” and described their theological stance and approach to church life as “traditional.” At the same time, quite sizeable factions identified themselves as being either “conservative” (28%) or “moderate-liberal” (31%). |
| Thomas E. FitzGerald 8. TOWARD GREATER UNITY AND WITNESS The quest for greater administrative unity among the Orthodox jurisdictions in America found concrete expression in the establishment of the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA) in 1960. Building upon the tradition of the earlier federation, SCOBA began to oversee the various inter-Orthodox activities and to coordinate ecumenical witness, which was born during the 1950s. It also became the focal point of efforts to establish a Provincial Synod of Orthodox Bishops, which would better serve the needs of Orthodox faithful and better reflect the organizational principles of Orthodox ecclesiology. 237 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SCOBA About two years after his arrival in this country to become head of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in 1949, Archbishop Michael (Constantinides) convened a meeting of Orthodox bishops on 12 March 1952. Participating in this historic gathering were Metropolitan Anthony (Bashir) of the Syrian (Antiochian) Orthodox Archdiocese, Metropolitan Leonty (Turkevich) of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church (Metropolia), Metropolitan Anastasy (Gribanovsky) of the Russian Orthodox Synod Abroad, Metropolitan Markary (Illinsky) of the Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Moscow, Bishop Orestes (Chornak) of the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic diocese, and Bishop Bogdan (Spilka) of the Ukrainian Orthodox diocese. The latter two jurisdictions were dioceses of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, like the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, 238 The meeting was significant if only because the heads of the three Russian Orthodox jurisdictions met together. There were intense rivalry and disputes between these jurisdictions resulting from divergent claims of authority in America and very different understanding of the authority of the Patriarchate of Moscow. The Exarchate was directly responsible to the Moscow Patriarchate. The Metropolia was in formal schism from the Moscow Patriarchate since 1924 but open to some form of mutual recognition. The Synod Abroad had only recently established its headquarters in New York as hundreds of its members came to the United States fleeing from further Communist advances in the Balkans and the Far East. The Synod Abroad was composed of Russian exiles who were staunch monarchists and who claimed that the Moscow Patriarchate had no authority because of cooperation with the Communist government. In addition to these significant differences, each jurisdiction saw itself as the rightful and canonical continuation of the old Alaskan mission. |
| Archive Time as Judge. Orthodox Churches of Russia and Constantinople in the 20th Century 12 December 2018 year 14:16 The topic of relationships between the Mother Church and the Sister Church – the Orthodox Churches of Constantinople and Russia was very painful in the last century. An open discourse about it is initiated by the Rev. Dr Alexander Mazyrin, PhD/Church History, and Andrey Kostryukov, PhD/Historical Sciences, in the collection ‘From the History of Relationships between the Churches of Russia and Constantinople in the 20th Century’. The publication consists of two essays: ‘Phanar and Renovationism against the Russian Orthodox Church’ by Father Alexander Mazyrin and ‘The Church Diaspora, and the Ecumenical See’ by A. Kostryukov. The below article written by Sergey Firsov, PhD/Historical Sciences, published in the ‘Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarkhii’ (Is. 10, 2018) is devoted to this collection. In fact, the overall title of Father Alexander’s essay already speaks clearly that he regards the actions of the Church of Constantinople as aimed against the Russian Orthodox Church supposing that these actions are conscious and well considered. From the very beginning the author shows that the Phanariots were not embarrassed by the arbitrary actions of the schismatic ‘Supreme Church Administration’ in 1922 and ‘along with the theomachist Bolsheviks and treasonous renovators, became another source of sorrow for the Russian Orthodox Church’. For Phanar, ‘political interests’ proved to be more important than canonical rules and the Orthodox church tradition. The author cites examples of how the Church of Constantinople (in the person of her supreme church authority) while expressing compassion for the Russian Church, sought to use the GRU-inspired church schism for her own political ends. A noticeable role in the negative development of the Greek-Russian church relations was played by two representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch – two Greek archimandrites, un uncles and his nephew, Jacob and Basil (Dimopoulos). The former was a representative of Phanar in Russia since 1894 and lived in his residence in Moscow (Krapivensky Pereulok, 4). Up to his death in 1924, he was an official representative of Phanar in Russia. Since 1924 up to his death in 1934, the same duty was fulfilled by his nephew. |
| Скачать epub pdf History Almost two thousand years ago, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to earth and founded the Church, through His Apostles and disciples, for the salvation of man. In the years which followed, the Apostles spread the Church and its teachings far; they founded many churches, all united in faith, worship, and the partaking of the Mysteries (or as they are called in the West, the Sacraments) of the Holy Church. The churches founded by the Apostles themselves include the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Rome. The Church of Constantinople was founded by St. Andrew, the Church of Alexandria by St. Mark, the Church of Antioch by St. Paul, the Church of Jerusalem by Sts. Peter and James, and the Church of Rome by Sts. Peter and Paul. Those founded in later years through the missionary activity of the first churches were the Churches of Sinai, Russia, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, and many others. Each of these churches is independent in administration, but, with the exception of the Church of Rome, which finally separated from the others in the year 1054, all are united in faith, doctrine, Apostolic tradition, sacraments, liturgies, and services. Together they constitute and call themselves the Orthodox Church. The teachings of the Church are derived from two sources: Holy Scripture, and Sacred Tradition, within which the Scriptures came to be, and within which they are interpreted. As written in the Gospel of St. John, «And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world could not contain the books that should be written» ( John 21:20 ). Much teaching transmitted orally by the Apostles has come down to us in Sacred Tradition. The word Orthodox literally means right teaching or right worship, being derived from two Greek words: orthos (right) and doxa (teaching or worship). As the false teachings and divisions multiplied in early Christian times, threatening to obscure the identity and purity of the Church, the term Orthodox quite logically came to be applied to it. The Orthodox Church carefully guards the truth against all error and schism, both to protect its flock and to glorify Christ whose body the Church is. |
| Thomas E. FitzGerald 9. AN ERA OF TRANSITIONS The year 1970 marked the beginning of two major controversies that profoundly affected the development of the Orthodox Church in the United States and marked a transition to a new stage of growth. The Russian Orthodox Metropolia was granted autocephalous status by the Patriarchate of Moscow in 1970. This meant that the Metropolia, from then on, known as the Orthodox Church in America, had been given recognition to be a fully independent, self-governing local church. This dramatic decision, however, was not recognized by all. During the same period, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese became embroiled in discussions over greater use of vernacular languages in worship. While both issues created much discord lasting well over a decade, they were expressions of deeper concerns over the permanent witness and mission of Orthodox Christianity in the United States. THE AUTOCEPHALY QUESTION The position and status of the Russian Orthodox Metropolia were dramatically altered by the political and ecclesiastical developments in the Soviet Union, especially after the death of Patriarch Tikhon in 1925. The October revolution of 1917 not only affected the relationship between church and state in the Soviet Union but also dealt a profound blow to the Russian Orthodox communities in the United States and Western Europe. The loss of financial support, combined with crisis in leadership and schisms, shook the Russian Orthodox Church in America throughout the 1920s. Under the leadership of Metropolitan Platon (Rozdestvensky), the Metropolia in 1924 declared itself to be «temporally autonomous» from its mother church, the Patriarchate of Moscow. This action was taken chiefly because many in America felt that communication with the official church in the Soviet Union was unreliable. Moreover, by 1933, the leaders of the Russian Orthodox Metropolia were refusing to give any pledge of loyalty to the government in the Soviet Union. 272 When attempts to reconcile the Metropolia to its mother church failed, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Moscow, led by the acting locum tenens of the Patriarchate, Metropolitan Sergius, declared on January 5, 1935, that the Metropolia was schismatic. Despite this bold action, the majority of the clergy and laity of the Metropolia " s approximately 250 parishes remained faithful to the leadership of Metropolitan Platon. 273 |
| Thomas E. FitzGerald 6. THE CHALLENGE OF THE OLD WORLD The period from about 1945 to about 1965 was one of slow but gradual transition for the Orthodox Church in the United States. Yet, it was a transition marked by two major characteristics, which appear to be in opposition. First, the political changes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union occurring during and after World War II not only affected the condition of the Orthodox Church in that part of the world but also had a profound impact upon a number of the Orthodox jurisdictions in this country. Differences in the evaluation of the political and ecclesiastical situations in the old country frequently led to further divisions among the Orthodox in this country. The second characteristic of this period of transition was the gradual development of the Orthodox Church from one comprising chiefly immigrants to one comprising persons born in this country and nurtured by its educational system. Although this process had been actually taking place from at least the 1920s, it appears to have become more pronounced in the postwar period. While migration of Orthodox from the Balkans, Russia, and the Middle East by no means ceased, the quotas imposed by the government in the 1920s assured that the numbers of the earlier period would never be repeated. The changing character of church membership in the postwar period, in turn, provided greater stability for the development of parishes and diocesan institutions for the larger Orthodox jurisdictions, especially the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, the Russian Orthodox Metropolia, and the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese. While cultural differences and Old World rivalries did not cease to affect the members of the various jurisdictions, there was evidence of a greater interest in forms of Orthodox cooperation that would bring together the clergy and laity of the various jurisdictions, especially at the local level. There were also some important indications that Orthodox theologians were in a better position to express their distinctive teachings within ecumenical forums. THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX DIOCESES |
| D. Oliver Herbel FR. RAPHAEL MORGAN AND EARLY AFRICAN AMERICAN ORTHODOXY ON AUGUST 15/28, 1907, THE Feast of Dormition, a black Jamaican immigrant to the United States was ordained to the Orthodox priesthood in Constantinople. 166 This marked the culmination of a journey in search of the «true church.» On that day, Robert Josias Morgan was ordained as Fr. Raphael and became the first man of African American descent born in the New World to be ordained in the Orthodox Church. One scholar found Morgan’s story so incredible that he wrote, «the Morgan story is so utterly improbable that one tends to dismiss it as a hoax.» 167 On the other hand, the journal Epiphany included a brief summary of Morgan’s story in a special volume dedicated to «African-American Orthodoxy.» 168 In the introduction, the editor noted that while sources for Morgan’s story were not extensive, they were substantial enough to prove his story was no hoax. The editor went on to speculate about possible motives for Morgan’s conversion and how Morgan may have understood his own conversion from the Protestant Episcopal Church to the Greek Orthodox Church. 169 Morgan’s ordination and subsequent ministry within the Orthodox Church was a considered response to the difficult situation black Americans faced, often being viewed as second class even within somewhat integrated churches, as was the case for his own Protestant Episcopal Church. One might expect that Morgan would have turned to one of the historically black churches in America, of which he had knowledge. One might alternatively think that if none of those were appropriate for him, he would seek to establish his own church. As this chapter shows, however, Morgan sought a different solution, one not grounded in the anti-traditional tradition but in the tradition of Orthodox Church, which he entered by the gate of restorationism. Although he initially considered an independent church, in keeping with American restorationism, and hoped for a furthering of ecumenical relations between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy, Morgan soon decided against such a move. Rather than continue the tradition of breaking from one " s previous tradition to join or start another sect in an attempt to restore the early Church, Morgan looked an outside tradition that could serve as a grounding, even critique, of that very anti-traditional tradition. The Orthodox tradition offered Morgan precisely that, for he saw it as a tradition that could stand on its own apart from the racial problems that beset Western Christianity. Indeed, he saw the Orthodox tradition as standing authoritatively prior to Western Christianity. |
|
|
