| Despite the division between the Royalists and the Venizelists, which continued to deepen, and the opposition of the new Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, Metropolitan Meletios and Bishop Alexander acted decisively to organize in a formal and legal manner the Greek Orthodox parishes in America. Through an encyclical dated 11 August 1921, Metropolitan Meletios called for the first Congress of Clergy and Laity of the parishes in America. This historic congress, held in New York on 13–15 September 1921, was the first time that clergy and lay representatives of the Greek Orthodox parishes from throughout the United States met together. The most important action of the congress was the establishment of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America. 118 In order to give the new archdiocese a legal as well as an ecclesiastical authority, it was formally incorporated in the state of New York on 19 September 1921. According to the document of incorporation, the purposes of the archdiocese were: To edify the religious and moral life of the Greek Orthodox Christians in North and South America on the basis of Holy Scripture, the rules and canons of the Holy Apostles and of the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the ancient undivided Church as they are or shall be actually interpreted by the Great Church of Christ in Constantinople and to exercise governing authority over and to maintain advisory relations with Greek Orthodox Churches throughout North and South America and to maintain spiritual and advisory relations with synods and other governing authorities of the said Church located elsewhere. 119 New developments soon occurred in both America and Constantinople that further altered the direction of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. Less than two months after the organization of the new archdiocese, Metropolitan Meletios was elected Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople on 25 November 1921. 120 This dramatic turn of events was to have a monumental effect upon Orthodox Christianity in America. Although Metropolitan Meletios was chosen to become patriarch at a time when the Church of Constantinople was beset with many problems, he continued to have a profound concern for the Orthodox faithful in America. This is very clearly evident in his enthronement speech, which was delivered in the patriarchal Church of St. George on 8 February 1922. After reflecting upon the state of the Orthodox churches, the new patriarch spoke with much affection and with much vision for the church in America: |
| For the sake of the clear understanding of the present situation amongst the faithful, we hereby make explicit that the just anathematisation by the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of schismatics that persist in their errors, cannot be and has not been overturned by the unilateral action of the Church of Constantinople. In the eyes of God, and in accordance with the Holy Canons and the teachings of the Orthodox Church, these individuals remain under their just condemnation, and are considered in schism; that is, fallen away from Holy Orthodoxy. Moreover, we remind the faithful of the Holy Canons which clearly express the principle that those who intercommune with the justly deposed, themselves enter into schism from the Orthodox Church (cf. Antioch, 2). Therefore any who, following the lawless decision of the Church of Constantinople, enter into communion with these schismatic individuals, do thereby depart from Orthodox canonical unity into schism, and the mortal peril it represents to the soul. The Orthodox Church of the Ukraine, under the Archpastoral care of His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry and his martyric co-Archpastors, remains today, as it has since the Act of 1686, the sole canonical body within that blessed land. The present decision of the Church of Constantinople to ‘revoke’ the Synodal Letter of that year is simply meritless, and according to the Orthodox canonical tradition is by nature an impossibility. Despite the statement made by the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople on 11th October of this year, the faithful may rest fully assured that the Act of 1686 remains valid and binding, and that the canonical authority of the Church of Ukraine and of the Patriarchate of Moscow remain unaffected by this groundless presumption of power by the Phanar. In light of these most grievous affronts to the very nature of canonical Orthodoxy, the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has no option except, with profound sorrow and yet with full conviction, publicly to register her assent with the decision of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Moscow, which recognises that continuing Eucharistic communion with the Church of Constantinople is impossible, at any level, until this ancient and once-glorious sister Church repents from its introduction of false and alien teachings about primacy and universal authority, contrary to the ancient Orthodox Faith, and ceases from its lawless actions. |
| In his subsequent introduction to the New Testament, 469 Tarazi questions the prevailing idea that the New Testament contains different theological approaches (Pauline, Johannine, synoptic and so on). For Tarazi, the New Testament contains but one view, namely the true gospel which is based on the message of the Old Testament prophets. The organic relation between the Old and New Testaments is clear in the fact that the New Testament represents the only «legitimate» interpretation of the Old Testament. For this reason, the texts of the New Testament have the same authority as those of the Old Testament, and from the moment they were written they were intended by their authors to be read as scripture, conveying to the believers the true message of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Following the tradition of the Church Fathers, Tarazi holds that Old and New Testament do not contain distinct »theologies»; they represent together the one Bible, containing the saving word of God which was revealed through the prophets and which found its ultimate expression in the Incarnation. Another biblical scholar, Daniel Ayuch, Professor of New Testament at the Institute, offers a modern reading of the narrative texts of the New Testament. He stresses the importance of reading the biblical texts in their final shape, and of analysing the level of the reader " s response. In two studies, Ayuch offers a critical and analytical reading of biblical studies in the Orthodox Church and their crucial role in the shaping of the Eastern tradition. 470 Throughout his work, he combines exegetical methods with educative strategies in order to enhance communication between academic circles and parishes. In the field of the Old Testament, Nicolas Abou Mrad, Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Languages at the Institute, has provided new insights on how to read the Bible, especially concerning the relationship between the narratives of the Old and the New Testaments. In «Abraham: typos of the Christian believer», 471 Abou Mrad shows that the idea of the New Covenant, as it is described and presented in the New Testament, is rooted in the story of Abraham, which introduces the reader of the Old Testament to the newness of God " s dealing with humankind, over against the »oldness» of human attempts to imprison God within the framework of «Ancient Near Eastern» religious categories. |
| There are two currents regarding the fathers of the Church that are competing on Antiochian territory and perhaps in other churches. One calls for following the fathers in every matter and regards any departure from their teaching or new interpretation of their sayings and even the act of facing new challenges to the faith to be a sort of deviation from the faith and a departure from correctness of belief and Orthodoxy. Some followers of this current even go so far as to accuse those who disagree with them of heresy. As for the other current, it regards itself as modernist and fashionable with no need for the fathers. It regards them as old-fashioned, obsolete, from the past, or a milestone in history. Followers of this current focus on the present moment, its givens and its challenges. It is open to the theological teaching in other churches, disregarding the rich heritage of the Church. One current glorifies the fathers and the other does not give them any importance. Which one do you think is correct? In reality, both are mistaken, because both start from untrue premises. They limit the fathers to the past and ignore the continuing work of the Holy Spirit, His continuing sanctifying activity among those who are purified, those who are illuminated, and those who are deified. First of all, who are the fathers? They are great teachers who are found in the Church and who contribute to confirming the correct faith or confronting heresies. They are regarded as saints in the Church because they combine spiritual sophistication, a virtuous life, and illumination with with learning, particularly theological learning. Many of them attained advanced worldly learning and placed it in the service of the true faith. They enriched the Christian tradition and laid its theological foundations. The fathers of the Church faced the social and religious challenges of their times. They taught and worked. For this reason, the Church regards their teaching as an indispensable treasure. It constitutes a great amount of holy tradition, the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. |
| The rector of the church, Rev. Sergiy Voronin, warmly greeted the archpastor and presented him with an Icon of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos. The head of the Administrative Secretariat of the Moscow Patriarchate greeted all those present with the feast day and conveyed to them words of greeting from His Holiness Patriarch Kirill who, while the chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, had contributed to reaching an agreement on the restoration of the Church of the Dormition. After the Liturgy the hierarch visited the memorial in the territory of the Embassy, erected at the place where the Church of All Holy Martyrs used to stand. There the faithful honoured the memory of those Chinese Orthodox Christians who had died for faith during the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. On October 19, H.E. Andrei Denisov, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation to the People’s Republic of China, gave a reception on the occasion of the 5 th anniversary of the consecration of the Church of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos. Among those who attended the reception were Ambassadors of Armenia, Kazakstan, Greece, Cyprus, as well as the chargé d’affaires ad interim of Serbia in China, Ms. Tatyana Panayotovich-Tsvetkovich; Mr. Dmitry Mezentsev, Secretary General of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization; Mr. Zhang Hang Huay, head of the Europe and Central Asia Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China; Mr. Zhang Lebin, deputy chairman of the State Administration for Religious Affairs of the People’s Republic of China; Ms. Xiao Hong, deputy director of the International Department of the State Administration for Religious Affairs; diplomats of the Russian Embassy and other countries; clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church and parishioners of the Church of the Dormition; Mr. Dmitry Petrovsky, a staff member of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations; staff members of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the State Administration for Religious Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. |
| Metropolitan HIlarion of Eastern America and New York: War always leads to more war Source: ROCOR Epistle of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. We, the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, having convened a regular session of the Council of Bishops in the God-preserved city of San Francisco, hereby mark an important spiritual event in Church history. It was here, where by God’s will, the oldest cathedra of the Russian Church Abroad was established, and which is now the last hierarchal cathedra according to the world clock, once occupied by St John, Archbishop of Shanghai and then of San Francisco. We celebrate the 20 th anniversary of his glorification this year . Here also lie the holy relics of St John, here thousands and thousands of pilgrims gather. During these days, the All-Diaspora Russian Orthodox Youth Conference is convening, in which our hierarchs are also participating. Marking this anniversary on Sunday , June16/29, during Divine Liturgy at the Cathedral of the Mother of God “Joy of All Who Sorrow,” the nominee of the Council of Bishops, Archimandrite Nicholas (Olhovsky), was consecrated to the episcopacy as Vicar of the Eastern American Diocese, with the title of Bishop of Manhattan. The Council of Bishops congratulates His Grace Bishop Nicholas and wishes him Divine aid in his archpastoral service to the Holy Church, and asks the God-loving flock to remember the new Bishop Nicholas in their prayers. St John, the wonderful miracle-worker and Righteous saint of God was fated to become the first glorified Russian saint who shone outside of the borders of Russia, outside the borders of our Fatherland. The Lord manifested through him miracles of healing, here the love-filled heart of St John prayed for us with utter empathy, rejecting no one. The descendant of the southern Russian noble family of the Maximoviches, which had already given Rus a holy hierarch, Metropolitan John of Tobolsk, Vladyka John of Shanghai and San Francisco never forgot his earthly homeland—Kievan Rus. In his childhood and youth, he more than once visited Dormition of the Mother of God Lavra of Svyatogorsk, where in our days, almost within its very walls, blood is spilt by those who die in internecine war. |
| Accept The site uses cookies to help show you the most up-to-date information. By continuing to use the site, you consent to the use of your Metadata and cookies. Cookie policy On commemoration day of St. Catherine, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk officiated at the Church of St. Catherine the Great Martyr In-the-Fields the representation of the Orthodox Church in America On December 7, 2020, the commemoration day of St. Catherine the Great Martyr, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations, officiated at the festive service at the Moscow representation of the Orthodox Church in America - the Church of St. Catherine In-the-Fields. The archpastor was assisted by Bishop Anthony of Moravichi, representative of the Patriarch of Serbia to the Patriarch of Moscow; Protopresbyter Vladimir Divakov, secretary to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia; Archpriest Nikolay Balashov, DECR vice-chairman; Archimandrite Seraphim (Shemyatovsky), representative of the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia; Archpriest Daniel Andreyuk, rector of the St. Catherine Church and representative of the Orthodox Church in America to the Moscow Patriarchal see; Archpriest Kakhaber Gogoshvili, Georgian Orthodox Church, acting dean of the Moscow church district; Archpriest Sergiy Tocheny, rector of the Church of Jacob Zabedee in-Kazennaya Sloboda and the Church of the Finding of the Lord’s Sepulcher in-Barashi; Archpriest Leonid Kalinin, rector of the Church of Great Martyr Clement the Pope of Rome In-Zamoskvorechie and chairman of the Experts Council for Church Art, Architecture and Restoration; as well as clergy of the St. Catherine Church. After the Prayer of Fervent Supplication, Metropolitan Hilarion lifted up a prayer read at a time of the spread of a pernicious infection. After the liturgy, Archpriest Daniel Andreyuk greeted Metropolitan Hilarion and thanked his concelebrants for their prayers and read out the message of greetings from His Beatitude Tikhon, Metropolitan of All America and Canada. |
| ‘From the modern history of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine’, the message states, ‘the conclusion can be made that it was essentially a violation of the principle of conciliarity, a lack of feeling of the pulse of real internal church life, as well as interference of political and other non-ecclesial forces in the internal affairs of the Church that led to the emergence of a schism in the Ukrainian Orthodoxy’. The message points to the fundamental causes of the development of non-canonical structures in Ukraine, such as ‘a lack of canonical awareness and obedience of the Church, a lack of conciliar consideration of important ecclesial matters, a lack of patience and mutual understanding, as well as pride and interference of political factors in church matters’. ‘It is an erroneous way which must not be taken by the Church of Christ’, the message states. Special emphasis is made on the fruitlessness of the attempt of state power and ‘forces outside the Church’ to artificially unity the Church without taking into account the realities of internal church life and possible dire consequences of such efforts: ‘The autocephalous status is of a solely technical ecclesial nature which lies in promoting the preaching of the Gospel in the territory of a particular state and it cannot be an instrument in geopolitical struggle. At the same time, the autocephalous status is granted to the whole Church within a certain territory. In this connection, it is necessary to realize that the emergence of another parallel jurisdiction in Ukraine may generate new confrontations among our people, which will not only threaten the security of the state but also question the possibility for a future unity of the Church in Ukraine. Our people cannot be divided for long, if not forever’. The message points out that the way out of the situation lies ‘in the restoration church unity in Ukraine, not in the fixation of the church division through establishing a parallel church jurisdiction’. It makes a special point that for a successful solution of the problem of the Ukrainian church schism ‘there is a need for other conditions, in particular, peace and stability in our state’. |
| Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century/ed. A. Van Roey, P. Allen. Leuven: Peeters, 1994. (Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta; vol. 56). S. Cyril, archbishop of Alexandria. Five Tomes against Nestorius; Scholia on the Incarnation; Christ is One; Fragments Against Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Synou si asts/trans. Ph.-E. Pusey. Oxford: James Parker, 1881. (A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church; vol. 47). S. P. N. Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Joannis Evangelium. Accedunt fragmenta varia necnon tractatus ad Tiberium diaconum duo/ed. Ph. E. Pusey. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1872 (repr. Bruxelles: Culture et civilisation, 1965). Vol. 1–3. S. P. N. Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in XII prophetas/ed. Ph. E. Pusey. Oxford: Cla ren don Press, 1868 (repr. Bruxelles: Culture et civilisation, 1965). Vol. 1–2. Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-Century Heresy: The Synodical Letter and other Docu ments/ed. P. Allen. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. (Oxford Early Christian Texts). St. Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on the Twelve Prophets/trans. R. Ch. Hill. Wa shington, D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2007. Vol. 1. (The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation; vol. 115). St. Cyril of Alexandria. Festal Letters 13–30/ed. Ph. R. Amidon, J. J. O’Keefe. Wa shing ton, D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2013. (The Fathers of the Church: A New Transla ti on; vol. 127). St. Cyril of Alexandria. Glaphyra on the Pentateuch/introd. G. K. Hillis, trans. N. P. Lunn. Washing ton, D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2018–2019. Vol. 1–2. (The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation; vol. 137–138). St. Cyril of Alexandria. On the Unity of Christ/ed. J. A. McGuckin. Crestwood (N. Y.): St. Vladi mir’s Seminary Press, 1995. St. Cyril of Alexandria. Three Christological Treatises/ed. D. King. Wa shing ton, D. C.: Ca tho lic University of America Press, 2014. (The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation; vol. 129). The Disputation with Pyrrhus of our Father Among the Saints Maximus the Confessor/trans. J. P. Farrell. Waymart (Pa.): St. Tikhon’s Monastery Press, 2014. |
| ‘The passing of this bill was preceded by a whole set of measures targeted at the canonical Church in Ukraine, including the slanderous anti-church campaign in the national mass media, seizure of church buildings with the use of brutal violence against clergyman and faithful, the initiation of numerous falsified criminal cases, pressure on bishops from the special services, attempts to seize the cradle of Russian monasticism – the Dormition Kiev Lavra of the Caves and other large monasteries with the forcible eviction of the inmates, as well as a wave of forced closure by local authorities of the church buildings of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and the ban on celebrating the divine services and the free use of plots of land upon which are located its monasteries, churches, and shrines,’ the Primate of the Russian Church underscored. According to His Holiness, ‘The outlawing of the religious organization uniting many millions of followers, thousands of communities and hundreds of monasteries throughout the country places the Ukrainian state alongside the most horrific theomachist regimes of the past.’ On behalf of the plenitude of the Russian Orthodox Church His Holiness Patriarch Kirill asked the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches to come out in support of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and all her faithful children who are afflicted ‘on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ (Rev 1:9). The message of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus’ was sent to the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches; Pope Francis; Patriarch Tawadros II of the Coptic Church; Archbishop Justin Welby of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican Communion; Catholicos of the East and Malankara Metropolitan Baselios Marthoma Mathew III; Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II; Catholicos Aram I of the Great House of Cilicia of the Armenian Apostolic Church; Catholicos-Patriarch Mar Awa III of the Assyrian Church of the East, Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rai of Antioch and All the East; Rev. Dr. Jerry Pillay, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches; and Franklin Graham, President of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. |
|
|
