| In 1991, Bishop Christopher (Kovacevich) (1928–2010), head of the diocese of Eastern America and the first American-born bishop to serve the Serbian Church in America, was elected by the Assembly of Bishops of the Church of Serbia to be the Metropolitan of the Serbian Church in North America. In 2010, Metropolitan Christopher died, and as of the beginning of 2013none of the five Serbian bishops in America had been made Metropolitan of the Serbian Church in America. By 2010, the American Serbian jurisdiction included two additional dioceses – Midwestern America, and Canada. The Serbian Church continued to support the Saint Sava School of Theology, a small coeducational school of theology in Libertyville, Illinois, which granted a B.A. in religious studies/priestly formation. The Romanian Orthodox in America The first parish in North America founded by Romanian Orthodox immigrants was organized in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, in 1902. The first Romanian parish in the United States was established by laity in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1904. In the next year, the Metropolitan of Transylvania sent Father Moise Balea to be the parish’s first priest and to minister to Romanian immigrants in other cities. Altogether he helped to establish about 20 Romanian Orthodox parishes in North America. By 1918 there were about 30 Romanian parishes in the U.S. and Canada, but only three of these (in Hamilton, Ontario; Montreal, Quebec; and Rayville, Saskatchewan) were within the jurisdiction of the Russian Missionary Diocese. The others were associated either with the Metropolitan of Moldava or the Metropolitan of Transylvania in the Old Country. In 1929, at a general congress of Romanian Orthodox clergy and laity held in Detroit, Michigan, an autonomous missionary episcopate was formed, to be under the canonical jurisdiction of the Church of Romania. This resolution was accepted in the next year by the Romanian Patriarchate, which officially established the Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America. Then in 1935, the Holy Synod of the Church in Romania elected and consecrated Archimandrite Polycarp (Morusca) (1883–1958) as the first bishop of the new episcopate. |
| In Chihli (later known as Hebei) province, in central Yung-ping-fu, a church and school were erected, and a native Chinese priest opened about twenty new places for preaching the Gospel. In Henan province, a Chinese official gave land in the city of Wei-hui, where he built a church and a school. This became a center for missionary work throughout Henan. By 1916 the Chinese Orthodox mission included: § the Monastery of the Dormition in Beijing; § the Hermitage of the Exaltation of the Cross in the hills west of Beijing; § a convent in Beijing; § nineteen churches, including four in Beijing; § thirty-two mission churches, including fourteen in Chihli province, twelve in Hubei, four in Henan, one in Tsian-fu, and one in Mongolia; § seventeen schools for boys and three for girls; § thirty-eight teachers, nearly all of whom were native Chinese; § 680 Chinese boys and girls enrolled in school; § a theological seminary in Beijing; § a meteorological station, library, printing house (which published one hundred Chinese Orthodox books), painting studio, carpenters shop, flour mill, candle factory, soap factory, weavers workshop, beehives, sewing house and brickyard. 785 Bishop Basil Yao of Beijing (1888–1962). Archpriest Basil Du († 1948), senior priest in Beijing. Photograph taken in 1938. (He is seen as a boy in the photo on p. 429, third from right.) Archpriest Sergius Chang, the surviving son of Sts. Mitrofan and Tatiana, New Martyrs of China. Photograph taken in 1934. (He is seen as a boy in the photo on p. 429, back row, fifth front left, dressed in white.) Chinese and Russian nuns of the Holy Protection Women’s Monastery in Beijing. Left to right: Fr. Elias Wen, Archpriest Basil Du and Hieromonk Innocent Jao. Beijing, 1932. The Orthodox Cathedral in Shanghai, built under the direction of St. John Maximovitch in the 1930s and dedicated to the Most Holy Mother of God «Surety of Sinners». The bell tower of the Orthodox mission in Beijing. Until the communists gained control of China in 1949, such cities as Beijing, Harbin and Shanghai were centers for Russian refugees of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. |
| The numbers, which actual historians working with archives, and not propagandists, refer to, indicate that the 1932–33 famine caused by the Bolshevists was not the genocide directed against Ukraine in particular. Prof. N.A. Ivnitsky, Doctor of History, an outstanding expert in the history of collectivization and dekulakization of the Soviet village, who is widely acknowledged in Russia and abroad, presents the following data: “The famine of 1932–33 struck a vast territory of the Soviet Union with the population of over 50 million people, including Ukraine, the North Caucasus, Kazakhstan, the Volga Region, southern districts of the Central Black Earth Region and the Ural, Western Siberia and partly other USSR regions… At an approximate estimate, in 1932–33 some 7 million people died from starvation and related diseases, including from 3 to 3,5 million people in Ukraine, at least 1 million people in the North Caucasus, 1,3 million people in Kazakhstan, and over 1 million people in the Volga Region, the Central Black Earth Region in the Ural and Western Siberia; some 7 million people in As for the percentage of the victims among the peasantry population, the tragedy was even more terrible for Kazakhstan and the Volga Region. “The comparative analysis of the materials of the censuses conducted in 1926 and 1937 demonstrates the following rural population decrease in the USSR regions which the famine struck in 1932–33: by 30,9% in Kazakhstan, by 23% in the Volga Region, by 20,5% in Ukraine, and by 20,4% in the North Caucasus,” Prof. V.V. Kondrashin In his article “The Famine of 1932–33 in Villages of the Volga Prof. Kondrashin points to the horrifying scope of the famine in the Volga Region, in particular. He mentions names of the villages and entire collective farms in the Volga Region where almost all residents perished and presents a shocking list of numerous settlements, in which cases of cannibalism were officially reported (and in how many villages such cases went unreported?!). In the memory of peasants in the Saratov and Penza regions for a long time there lived the following chastushka (ditty): “In the year thirty-three all the goosefoot plants were eaten. Swollen arms and swollen legs, people died, with hunger beaten.” |
| Patriarch Dimitrios warmly responded to the welcome. In the course of his response, the Patriarch made reference to the situation of the Orthodox Church in the United States: It is truly a scandal for the unity of the Church to maintain more than one bishop in any given city; it clearly contravenes the sacred canons and Orthodox ecclesiology. It is a scandal that is exacerbated whenever phyletistic motives play a part, a practice soundly condemned by the Orthodox Church in the last century. The Ecumenical Patriarchate, as a supra-national Church serving the unity of the Church, is not indifferent to the condition that has evolved, and will exert every effort in cooperation with the other Holy Orthodox Churches, and in accordance with canonical order, to resolve this thorny problem. 323 The visit of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the meetings that he and his associates had with church leaders in America were seen by many as a sign that new attention was being given to the issues related to greater unity and common witness. DIOCESAN LIFE The major political developments in Central and Eastern Europe, especially in the period between 1989 and 1993, enabled the Orthodox churches in those regions to reaffirm their mission and witness. As in earlier periods of this century, these European changes were reflected in developments in church life in this country. This time, however, the developments were generally very positive. In conjunction with efforts to provide assistance to the churches in the Old World as they emerged from a period of oppression, many of the dioceses in this country, which had experienced divisions in the 1950s and 1960s, were reconciled or at least brought closer together. The Serbian Orthodox dioceses, divided since 1963, were reconciled through the personal interventions of Patriarch Paul of Serbia, who visited this country in 1992. Bishop Kyril (Yonchev), who, together with a number of clergy and laity, separated from the Orthodox Church of Bulgaria in 1963, was recognized by Patriarch Maxim and the synod of that church during a visit there in 1992. The dramatic restoration of the Orthodox Church in Albania in 1992–1993 also led to greater contact between members of the two Albanian Orthodox dioceses in this country that were divided in 1950. Finally, the two Romanian Orthodox dioceses divided since 1951 agreed to the restoration of relations in 1993. 324 |
| 716. “‘To drink of the one Spirit’ (1 Cor 12:12): The Theology of Ecclesial Communion in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy,” paper read 12 May 2004 at the Orientale Lumen EuroEast I Conference “Liturgy as a Foundation for Dialogue,” Istanbul, Turkey, 10-13 May 2004, in press in the Acta. 717. “Questions on the Eastern Churches” 10: “Byzantine-rite Concelebration of the Eucharist,” in press in ECJ. 718. Through Byzantine Eyes: Liturgy as the Byzantines Saw It, The Paul G. Manolis Distinguished Lecture Series, 18-20 January 2005, the Patriarch Athenagoras Orthodox Institute, Berkeley, CA, in press. 719. “Christ in the Byzantine Divine Office,” paper given at the Conference The Place of Christ in Liturgical Prayer: Christology, Trinity, and Liturgical Theology, Yale University Institute of Sacred Music, 24-27 February 2005, in press in the Acta. 720. “Questions on the Eastern Churches” 11: “The Unmixed Chalice in the Armenian Eucharist,” in press in ECJ. 721. “Questions on the Eastern Churches” 12: “Gestures of Blessing in Byzantine Iconography” in press in ECJ. 722. “At the Sunset of the Empire: The Formation of the Final ‘Byzantine Liturgical Synthesis’ in the Patriarchate of Constantinople,” lecture at the International Conference Le Patriarcat de Constantinople aux XIVe au XVIe siècles: Rupture et continuité, held at the Accademia della Romania and the Forum Austriaco di Cultura, Rome, 5-7 December, in press in the Acta to appear in the collection «Dossiers byzantins» published by the Centre d’Etudes Byzantines Néo-Helléniques et Sud-Est Européenes, Paris. 723. “Avoiding Closure: The Multiple Conclusions of the Byzantine Eucharistic Liturgies.” Major Paper at the First International SOL Congress, Collegium Orientale, Eichstätt, Germany, 23-28 July 2006, to be published in the Congress Acta in BBGG. 724. “Il patrimonio liturgico dell’Oriente cristiano,” to appear in Oriente cattolico (Rome: Congregazione per le Chiese Orientali) in preparation. 725. “L’opera liturgica della Congregazione per le Chiese Orientali,” to appear in Oriente cattolico (Rome: Congregazione per le Chiese Orientali) in preparation. |
| Mr. Daleiden: Planned Parenthood’s absolutely on the wrong side of the law on this point, and they know it, and that’s why they’re working overtime to try to cover that up and to distract from the whole issue. There’s also… So the law that you just quoted is the federal law on human organ transfers in general. There’s also a federal law on human fetal tissue specifically, and that’s Title 42, §289g-2 , and that explicitly prohibits any payments for fetal tissue, and the definition of “valuable consideration” that establishes that certain reimbursement payments for certain costs of facilitating a tissue or organ donation, that section is actually narrower in the specific fetal tissue law than it is in the organ donation law. Yeah, the qualifier about “removal” has been taken out of the fetal tissue one because of specific legislative intent there that Congress wanted to make sure they closed off any possible loophole that an organization like Planned Parenthood might use to justify payments on a per-specimen basis for aborted fetal tissue. But ultimately the interpretation of citizen-journalists like myself, interpretation of the public and of lawmakers, and also the interpretation of Planned Parenthood and Planned Parenthood’s own attorneys are actually all in agreement here. The federal fetal tissue law that if you’re making a profit or receiving a financial benefit for supplying aborted fetal tissue, everybody, Planned Parenthood included, agrees that that’s what’s against the law and that’s wrong, and that’s the point that Planned Parenthood is most strongly trying to say, “We don’t receive any financial benefit. We don’t receive any profit.” But when you actually look at the way that the business operates, Planned Parenthood doesn’t transport fetal tissue, Planned Parenthood doesn’t ship it, Planned Parenthood doesn’t do any of that, because they partner with middleman companies like StemExpress or Advanced BioScience [Laboratories] or Novogenix Laboratories, and those middleman companies send in harvesting technicians or procurement technicians like my friend Holly O’Donnell, who used to be one, who used to work for StemExpress doing that, and those techs go into the Planned Parenthood abortion clinics first thing in the morning. They have a list of all of the body parts orders that have come in, and they let the clinical staff know what they’re looking for, like Dr. Nucatola, the senior director of medical services, says, they have a huddle at the beginning of the day to map out what they need to harvest at that day. |
| The first practical steps have been made to revive the army clergy. At present, there are 240 vacancies for staff priests, and 814 non-staff priests serve in the Russian Army Forces. The Russian Church is actively involved in social service. Orthodox church asylums and orphanages are established; aid to old people, the disabled and homeless is given; assistance is given in the treatment and rehabilitation of those dependent on alcohol and drugs and in restoration of their social relations and work skills. Almost in all the dioceses of our Church, their ruling bishops have appointed clergy to take pastoral care of inmates of penitentiaries. Today, 905 priests serve in them. The Russian Church is active in presenting her position on topical issues of today in the UN, Council of Europe, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and other international organizations. She attaches a special importance to the strengthening of relations with governmental bodies and the civil society in other countries (including through contacts with the diplomatic corps accredited in Moscow). The aim of these efforts is to inform people in other countries of the Church’s position on burning issues having the ethical dimension. Among them the problems of euthanasia, abortion, legalization of same-sex unions and trafficking of people. The revival of the Church and the expansion of her work, her growing authority in society and cooperation with the state in diverse areas have provoked displeasure in certain social circles. There are censures in the mass media for the Church’s “interpenetration with the state”, “clericalization of society”, and the like. His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, in his address to the Bishops’ Council in 2013, reminded the public once again that “the Church does not interfere in the affairs of state governance, and the state does not interfere in the affairs of the Church but both work together for people’s benefit”. We remain strongly convinced that the secular nature of the state does not presuppose the ousting of the Church from the public space or her marginalization and placement in a “ghetto”. The Russian Orthodox Church is not only a social institution that has played a tremendous historical role in the development of Russian statehood and formation of the Russian people’s Christian spirit, but also an important part of the modern civil society. By virtue of this fact the Church has a right to expect that her voice is heard. And now, at a time of relative wellbeing of the Church, relevant are the words of St. Tikhon, the Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, who said not long before his death, “Looking at the future ways of holy Orthodoxy without fear, we call upon you, our beloved children, do God’s cause and may the sons of lawlessness never succeed”. |
| In memoriam of Father A. Neliouboff (russ.), in: Vest.russ. chr.st.dv. 1938, Nr. 2, 3 S. Thirty Years (in Memoriam of the Tsar f s Family) (russ.), in: Russ. Mysl» Juli 1948. In Memoriam K.V. Motchulsky (russ.), in: Russ. Mysl’ Nr. 51, 2.4.1948, 3 S. Rodoslovie ducha. Pamjati K.V, Moul " skago, in: Prav. Mysl’ 7(1949) 10 S. The Trial of Metropolitan Benjamin (russ.), in: Word of the Church (Russ. Mysl’) Paris Juni-August 1949, 145, 153, 161 . Archiepiskop Chrisanth, in: Cerk.Vest.Zap.Ev.Ekz. 1949,21, 30–31. Pamjati episkopa Ioanna, ebda 1951,28,2–3. Michail Michailovi Osorgin (29.10.1950), ebda 1951,28,19–20. Pravoslavnyj trud ob Apokalipse (Rez.), ebda 1951,30,8–12. Pamjati G.P. Fedotova, ebda 1951,33,12–15. In Memoriam of G.L. Losinsky (russ.), in: Vozrodenie 23 (Sept.–0kt. 1952) 2 S. L.A. Zander, Vision and action: the problem of oecumenism (Rez.), ebda 1953,41,23–27. WerKe (nach 1954) Christianstvo i pervoe christianskoe pokolenie. Paris 1950; 2 1965, 270 S. Saint Pierre et l " Eglise dans le Nouveau Testament, in: Istina 3(1955)261–304. C.H. Dodd, The interpretation of the Forth Gospel (Rez.), in: Prav. Mysl’ 10(1955)140–151. C. Spicq, L " Epître aux Hébreux (Rez.), ebda 152–154. . Cullmann, Saint Pierre, disciple-Apotre-martyr (Rez.), ebda 155–156. Jésus le Précurseur, in: Theologia 27(1956)104–122. L " étude du Nouveau Testament dans l " Eglise orthodoxe, in: Bulletin de la Faculté libre de théologie protestante de Paris, Nr. 55, Sept. 1956. Tajna Very (К voprosu о tekst» Mk. 9,23 ), in: Cerk.Vest. 1957, 66,61–68. The Family of God, in: Ecum. Rev. 9(1957)129–142. Smert» Pastyrja (K ponimaniju In. XXI,18–19), in: Prav. Mysl» 11(1957)85–99; (engl.) John XXI , in: NTS 3(1956)132–136. Anton Vladimirovi Kartašev, in: Prav. Mysl’ 11(1957)9–16. La Bénédiction de l " eau de l " Epiphanie à la lumière du Nouveau Testament, in: Irénikon 31(1958)5–18. Autor de la Convocation du Concile Oecuménique, in: Le Messager Orthodoxe 6(1959)9–13. Das Studium des Neuen Testamentes in der Orthodoxen Kirche, in: Kyrios 1(1960/61)22–39. |
| ‘The restoration work in the St. Thecla Convent in Maaloula is being completed and we hope that pilgrims will be able to visit these holy places again and enjoy coming in touch with the deep spiritual tradition of your Church’, he continued, ‘At your request, another important project will soon be implemented – the restoration of the church compound in Arbin and the church in Al-Zabadani near Damascus’. In addition, after some difficulties had been overcome, an agreement was reached to install the necessary equipment in the Patriarchal Al-Hosn hospital, the patriarch said. Speaking about the development of students exchange between the two Patriarchates, His Holiness said, ‘Now, five representatives of your Church, young students, are studying in Russia. In its turn, the St. John of Damascus Institute in Balamand admitted two female students from the Moscow Patriarchate. I believe it is a very good program and we have to develop it because students who study in Russia and students who are trained in the territory of your Church gain a unique experience by coming in touch with the spirituality and traditions of our fraternal Churches and in the future will be able to make a considerable contribution to the development of inter-church relations’. Patriarch Kirill described the development of bilateral relations and cooperation as ‘very important both for the consolidation of relations between the two Churches and for maintaining good relations between our nations’. Speaking in response, the Primate of the Orthodox Church of Antioch said, ‘First of all, on behalf of the Orthodox Church of Antioch, I would like to express the warm feeling of love and respect for the Russian Orthodox Church and personally for Your Holiness and your brothers. In this connection, I would like to stress a special importance of the fact that we are present now at the celebrations devoted to the 10 th anniversary of your enthronement. It is a very important event’. His Beatitude thanked the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church for the moving, warm and sincere words of welcome, which reflect the feeling of fraternal love and good relations existing between the two Churches. ‘These relations go deep in our history and now are successfully developing in various areas of activity’, he said |
| In 2013the diocese had 72regular parishes and 13mission parishes, along with Christ the Savior Seminary in Johnstown. The Albanian Orthodox in America In 1908, Theophan (Fan) (Noli) (1882–1965) , an Albanian, was ordained to the priesthood by Archbishop Platon, Archbishop Tikhon’s successor as head of the Russian Missionary Diocese, to be the leader of the Albanian Orthodox community in Boston – which was the earliest Albanian immigrant community in North America. He translated the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom into modern Albanian, and conducted the services in that language for the first time anywhere in the world. In the 1918 list of parishes of the Russian Diocese in America, we find four Albanian churches listed, with “Rev. F. S. Noli” given as the pastor of Saint George Church in Boston. In that year, Bishop Alexander, Metropolitan Evdokim’s successor, raised Father Theophan to the rank of mitred archimandrite and appointed him as Administrator of the Albanian Orthodox Mission in America. At the Second All-American Sobor of the Russian Diocese in America, held in Cleveland in 1919, Archimandrite Theophan was elected to be bishop over the Albanian parishes. However, approval for this consecration never came from the Church in Moscow, as we have noted. In 1932, after about a dozen years spent in Albania (where he served for a short time as Prime Minister) and then in exile in Germany, Noli returned to the U.S. as a bishop, but without official authorization to oversee the Albanian parishes in America. As a result, several of the 15 parishes at that time stayed aloof from him. In 1949 these few parishes were accepted by the Patriarchate of Constantinople under the leadership of Bishop Mark (Lipa). This new jurisdiction was called the Albanian Orthodox Diocese of America. Archbishop Theophan was soon generally accepted as the legitimate leader of the Albanian Orthodox parishes which stayed loyal to him. During his long tenure, until his death in 1965, Metropolitan Theophan translated eight service books from Greek into English for his flock, and he was one of the most outspoken of the Orthodox hierarchs in America for Orthodox unity here. He even called for the establishment of a patriarchate for the American Church. |
|
|
