The Orthodox Christian Church in North America at a Crossroad

July, 2005 was a turning point for the Orthodox Christian Church in North America. It was the time when two independent self governing Orthodox Christian Church bodies in North America, the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America (OCA) and the Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christain Archdiocese of North America, met with the clergy and lay leaders of the parishes throughout the Americas. In a conciliar manner, hierarchy, clergy and laity reasoned together to make decisions for the good order of their respective bodies, so they could move forward to face the challenges of the 21st century. The OCA meeting took place in Toronto, Canada July 17-22, 2005 and the Antiochian meeting took place in Dearborn, Michigan July 24-31, 2005.

Both groups realize that they are at a crossroads and that bold thinking and actions are needed to meet the needs of the People of God. The theme of the OCA meeting was “Our Church and the Future” and the theme of the Antiochian meeting was “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind.” (Romans 12:2) These two themes interrelate as Father Thomas Hopko, Dean Emeritus of St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary, pointed out. We are transformed by trusting in God and through God all things are possible. If we are conformed to the world and seek prosperity, possessions, position, popularity and prestige for the Church we will have no future. All Orthodox jurisdictions must die in Christ so that they can be resurrected in Unity and the Church can witness to Christ and make disciples of the people who live in the Americas. This is the mission of the Church and it can be best accomplished in Unity.

Although both meetings were held separately there were common elements and themes that both assemblies must address in order to move ahead to meet the spiritual needs of the faithful. One priority was Orthodox Christian Unity in North America and another was Evangelization. His Beatitude Herman, Archbishop of New York and Washington and Metropolitan of All America and Canada, addressed the topic of Unity in an eloquent and direct address to all delegates, observers and visitors in his banquet remarks. Metropolitan Philip, Primate of the Antiochian Archdiocese, devoted his keynote address to the topic of unity. Both leaders see Unity as necessary and part of the good order of the Church in the Americas. OCL will post the text of both speeches on its web site www.ocl.org when they are made available.

The faithful clergy and laity of both assemblies are ready to work together in Unity to do the work of the Church which is to keep the faith as it has been handed to us at this time and place by the apostles and church fathers and to share the faith with all those who seek to become Orthodox Christians. The clergy and laity of both bodies share this commitment to Orthodox administrative Unity. They are willing to give up what needs to be given up to accomplish this task. The delegates to the Antiochian Archdiocese meeting voted a strong resolution directed at SCOBA to move ahead to make Unity a reality. The full text is printed for your consideration.

A highlight of the OCA meeting was the panel discussion on Orthodox Relations which featured a video presentation by His Grace Bishop Basil of Wichita of the Antiochian Archdiocese. He called for the re-establishment of a bilateral commission between the OCA and the Antiochian Archdiocese on topics of mutual concern. He received an extended standing ovation. People applauded this concrete proposal.

Other concrete options that the clergy and laity suggested in informal gatherings related to Unity included:

Asking the two primates Metropolitans Herman and Philip to appoint two bishops from their archdioceses to meet together to discuss how the two archdioceses can work together to address mutual concerns.

Setting up a meeting between Metropolitan Philip and Metropolitan Herman so that they can sit down together and talk directly about their mutual interest in jurisdictional Unity as part of the good order of the church. Father Leonid Kishkovsky stressed the importance of direct contact Metropolitan to Metropolitan in External Affairs and many saw the wisdom of these interactions and wondered why there is such little eye to eye contact between the hierarchies in the Americas. A meeting with Metropolitan Herman and Metropolitan Philip would be a very meaningful concrete first step to jump start the movement toward administrative Unity.

Establishing a new organization of all the canonical heads of jurisdictions to replace SCOBA. Those left out of the SCOBA meetings would be able to participate.

There is a consensus among the faithful People of God in both jurisdictions that the OCA and Antiochians share enough mutual interests that they should move ahead. They cannot wait for all jurisdictions to join together at the same time. Some jurisdictions are not ready. Move ahead with those who are ready and in time the others will follow because they will have no choice. Most of the faithful believe that the OCA must take the leadership role in moving ahead on Unity because they are the local Church in the Americas by the fact of their Autocephaly.

The second common element of both meetings is the commitment of both assemblies to Evangelization. For hundreds of years Orthodox Christians couldn’t even talk about their faith for fear of having their tongues cut out or face other reprisals. The Church and its people were in captivity in Moslem or Communist lands. But today in America they are free to speak and write about the ancient apostolic Orthodox Christian faith. In America people are looking for the ancient faith and they are finding and choosing to become Orthodox Christians. They are flocking to both of these bodies through their well developed programs in Evangelization. So much more could be accomplished if they did this work of the Great Commission together! Here is the perfect bilateral program to further develop.

Two other highlights that I observed worth noting are that the Council Study Papers sent to the delegates and observers of the OCA meeting were excellent and applicable to all Orthodox jurisdictions not only the OCA. The lectures and panel discussions and the process involving all the participants to solicit their input on each priority were well organized and involved everyone. All the steps were designed to get input and create the vision for the OCA for the next ten years.

The outstanding Antiochian Camp and Youth and Young Adult Programs were presented by gifted and spirited young people. As faithful stewards we must guide our youth so that they can pass down Orthodoxy to the next generation. As a United Orthodox Christian Church in North America all our youth could have opportunities to participate in the excellent programs. There would be no jurisdictional barriers. The youth are ahead of us and inter-Orthodox programs such as OCMC, IOCC and OCF have broken down jurisdictional barriers. Both conventions were well attended by youth and they participated in all aspects of the meetings.

The holy services of daily Divine Liturgies and Vespers were holy occasions for the participants to reflect upon the work that they were doing each day. The Holy Spirit was truly guiding these two proceedings involving collectively over 3500 Church leaders. The people of God are ready to work toward building a United Orthodox Christian Church in North America. We call on the hierarchy to lead!

*** Observations submitted by George Matsoukas, Executive Director of Orthodox Christian Laity, an independent movement of Church Faithful dedicated to the formation of a United and Self Governed Orthodox Church in North America.

It seems to me that the formal recognition of the MP and in consequence some 200 million or so Orthodox Christians is not insignificant. By my reckoning somewhere around three quarters of the worlds Orthodox would by default regard themselves as being in communion with an autocephilous Orthodox Church in America. And while it is true that the EP and a majority of the worlds other canonical Orthodox churches have not granted de jure recognition of the OCA's status they do almost without exception regard the OCA as being an canonical and self governing church. This raises some interesting questions about church politics. But being Catholic, and having enough church politics of our own to deal with; I will let you all bicker about this rather silly point.

For hundreds of years Orthodox Christians couldn’t even talk about their faith for fear of having their tongues cut out or face other reprisals. The Church and its people were in captivity in Moslem or Communist lands. But today in America they are free to speak and write about the ancient apostolic Orthodox Christian faith.

Good for you. Let's hope the Orthodox faith re-flowers in the lands of it's origin

On a note that I failed to mention in my last post to you. If you are planning on converting to Orthodoxy be aware that alone among the Orthodox in the United States (at least those which are not schismatic) the ROCOR does NOT recognize non-Orthodox baptisms (including Catholic and Anglican). The use of the Trinitarian formula is almost universally accepted as valid by the other Orthodox jurisdictions. But the ROCOR requires converts (in some cases from other Orthodox jurisdictions) to be re baptized. I have in the past contemplated conversion. There are aspects of Orthodoxy that greatly appeal to me. But that requirement would absolutely keep me from the ROCOR which I in other respects admire.

"This raises some interesting questions about church politics. "

Does the word "Byzantine" resonate any with you?

"But being Catholic, and having enough church politics of our own to deal with; I will let you all bicker about this rather silly point."

Nobody bickers about this anymore, haven't for years and years because, as you say, its silly. The "political question" facing Orthodoxy in America is the creation of an autocephallous American Church out of the various jurisdictions represented here. I think its a safe bet that a majority of the Orthodox who care about the issue are against it, at least right now.

Thanks Kosta for the insights. There is something a dichotomy, as I'm sure you're aware, between the practices of the eastern Catholic churches and the western. We still do fast in the eastern churches and for reasons that pretty much mirror the reasons why the Orthodox churches do so. My own church is in the Phillipian fast right now.

What you say is basically correct. I don't think there's much understanding in the western church as to why we fast. What people don't understand, they don't practice.

As I said in my correction (#115), those Catholics who do fast do it for the same reasons we do, regardless if they are Western or Eastern rite.

Catholics (and by that generalization I always mean Latin Catholics because the Eastern rite members of the RCC are but 2% of the Catholics world-wide) understand the concept (and the need) for self-denial. That is clearly proclaimed by Thomas Merton, as a shining example of a Catholic whose theology and spirituality expresses the same apophatic knowledge on which Orthodoxy is founded.

But where (Latin) Catholics differ from the Orthodox, and ultimately from their Eastern-rite brethren, is in the phronema or mindset where love is spoken of but often eclipsed by obedience and legalisms. Fasting, to most Catholics I spoke to, was a duty and an obligation.

Eastern-rite Catholics are Catholics, let's be honest if not blunt about it, because they recgonize the Pope not only as the Patriarch of the West, and a first among other Patriarchs in honor, but of the entire Church -- a visible head of the whole Church to whom all bishops and patriarchs are subjects. Take that monarchichal factor out of their equation and they cease to be Catholic. Once that was agreed upon, the theology gave way to Latin innovations, but the key element is the recognition of papal supremacy. Eastern-rite rites and phronema remained just what they used to be -- Orthodox, and that would include fasting as well.

From what I read online about ROCOR (they don't bother with an official overview on their web site) they re-baptise Catholics, but not other Orthodox in most cases.

The day I was baptised into the Orthodox church I saw a Catholic woman converting to the Orthodox church (OCA) and she was chrisimated but not baptised. Further she had to renounce the sins of the bishop of Rome.

Seems you could be Chrisimated in an Antiochian, OCA, or GOA church and then go to a ROCOR church. There is some inconsistency however with regard to practices at ROCOR parishes from what I've heard.

Interesting verbage from OrthodoxWiki (not real sure the authority of the content there): http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Fourth_Ecumenical_Council

"Regarding the second misunderstanding, the Orthodox do not accept the doctrine of Papal authority as established in 1870 by the Vatican Council and taught in the Roman Catholic Church today. But neither do they deny Rome its place of primacy, as she is first among honor as set up by the second Council. It was Rome, after all, who stayed most true to the faith during many of the heresies over the centuries. Where the Orthodox see Rome going wrong is when they turned this place of 'primacy' in love (as St. Ignatius called it) into a place of supremacy of external jurisdiction and power. And so the primacy assigned to Rome does not overthrow the essential quality of all bishops. The Pope may be the 'first Bishop in the Church,' but he is first among equals."

Interesting verbage from OrthodoxWiki (not real sure the authority of the content there

That is absolutely correct. The Orthodox Church recognizes that (Old) Rome carries the primacy of the elder brother, but no jurisdictional authority over the entire Church. It is, indeed the first-in-love concept.

The Undivided Church recognized the Bishop of [Old] Rome (aka the Pope of Rome) as the first in honor and privilege, followed by second in honor and equal priviledge the Bishop of Constantinople [New Rome]. This recognition is not optional -- it obligatory because it was proclaimed by an Ecumenical Council (as well as by an Imperial Decree at another time).

This privileged status among Patriarchs belong to these two because of Rome and Constantinople became impirial capitals respectively, and for no other reason. The Unidivided Church never proclaimed (through an Ecumenical Council) that the Bishop of Old Rome was in any way scripturally entitled to greater jurisdictional authority over other Patriarchs; he was jurisdictionally supreme only in the western Patriarchate.

The real schism between the East and the West occurred at Vatican I, when the Pope of Rome proclaimed himself inerrant (ex cathedra) as a dogma unknown to the Undivided Church. This Latin innovation did more to assure no reconcilliation was possible than any other issue. The Latin Church, of course, taught imperial papacy, and the "Viccar of Christ" model ever since the Great Schism, but it was never a matter of dogma unil 1870.

LOL Yes "byzantine" does indeed resonate. That said, I am not altogether sure about your view that most Orthodox are opposed to a single unified Orthodox Church in North America. I would agree that a majority of those on FR are certainly against it. But from what I have been able to discern there seems to be a solid majority in favor of it within the OCA and the AOC. The GOA seems much cooler to the idea with many of the smaller and more ethnic jurisdictions also leaning against it to varying degrees. In the case of the GOA it seems (from an outsiders perspective) that at least some of the coolness has been more of a top down attitude starting with the EP who has very real (and non-thelogical) reasons to worry about American Orthodoxy becoming independent.

Another aspect already noted in many posts are that many smaller jurisdictions (Bulgarian Romanian etc) are also concerned about loosing their ethnic identity. Here though is the rub from my point of view. Is it canonical for as many Orthodox jurisdictions with cumulatively somewhere close to 6 million or so faithful in N. America to be divided up this way? I was always under the impression that it was considered highly uncanonical for there to be more than one bishop with jurisdiction over the same piece of real estate.

The Moscow Patriarchate did not hide its desire to be the leader of Orthodox Christianity, and in many ways it was and is. Russia was the life and hope of Orthodox Slavs under a five-century Ottoman persecution. Russian Orthodoxy represents a whopping 80% of world's Orthodox and as such should a factor that must never be ignored. But, at the same time, tradition is what defines Orthodox Christianity, the unchanging Church, jst like the Faith, once delievered.

The "smallest" Patriarch is at the same time the leading Patriarch. The Ecumenical Patriarch has a parish of s couple of thousand Greeks, but he is first among equals in Orthodoxy (only because we cannot commune with the Pope of Old Rome). Of course, he also has all of American Greek Orthodox under his wing, etc. but still, the Moscow Patriarchate has the vast majority of Orthodox Chirstians unde rits fold. A loving balance must exist, giving deferrence to the EP, while making sure the MP is heard, and heard well.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.