Posted on 10/08/2006 7:06:19 AM PDT by kawaii
That should be shouldnt not should.
None of this is particularly pretty. My antipathy to the actions of the EP in the 20th c are no secret on FR. There have unquestionably been those in the Russian world who have historically been triumphalistic and overweening. Anyone who has been a part of the "Russian diaspora" is furthermore going to have a fair amount of "MP" baggage from the Soviet era, furthermore. This is as true, frankly, in the OCA as it is in the ROCOR.
It is a bit amusing, however, given the pretentions of the EP, which probably has more bishops than faithful, and yet which styles itself the "worldwide head of Orthodoxy" as though the Byzantine empire still existed, for its representatives to use the word "hubris" to describe Russian attitudes. For if hubris means anything, it is thinking that one is something when one is not. Russians might be arrogant, overbearing, phyletistic, or all three (I could give you examples!) -- but they are not being hubristic when thinking themselves to be the 2000 lb gorilla of post-Byzantine Orthodoxy.
The EP has made it abundantly clear in the 20th c, regardless of who has been in the throne, that he wants to be the "Pope of the East" -- if the rest of the Orthodox world would only go along with it. When the EP reps quoted in the article are going on about not wanting a "vaticanized" Orthodoxy, they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. That is exactly the model that the EP has been pursuing. Fortunately, those leading the charge against Black Bart's pretentions have in some cases been some of "his people" in the GOA, which has been invaluable in curbing those ambitions.
It is disingenuous for those on the Catholic side to say that they don't care how this turns out, as long as there is Orthodox unity. Rome has made it abundantly clear that she wants the "Pope of the East" model to reign in Orthodoxy, since Rome's ambitions would be far easier to accomplish if she only has to negotiate with one Patriarch who can tell the others what to do. If the "you have to be in communion with Constantinople to be Orthodox" mentality could penetrate into the Orthodox phronema, Rome would be halfway to where she wants to go. If there is something that Rome does *not* want, it is a strongly unified Orthodoxy that does not believe that communion with *any* one bishop is a necessary touchstone of Christian catholicity. It is far more in Rome's interests for Orthodox to feud amongst itself than for that to happen, and it has promoted those feuds with quiet vigor in the 20th c.
Rome has done much to prop up the tottering EP for precisely that reason. Ironically, the EP's eagerness to receive this support has resulted in far more hostility toward it in the broader Orthodox world than it ever experienced in the 19th c or earlier. I've been in OCA, ROCOR, and Serbian parishes, and amongst those who are informed about these things, the reflexive hostility toward the EP is truly remarkable -- in some cases, really, disproportionate to what is probably deserved, but this is simply a measure of the anger that the EP frequently generates amongst those not under its direct jurisdiction. It is completely unnecessary -- I think that the instinct, minus those attitudes and actions, amongst most Orthodox Christians would be one of sympathy toward Constantinople and one of a desire to maintain the status-quo of her as the "first-among-equals." Instead, you see the kind of hostile attitudes toward the EP that crop up regularly here on FR.
Some of the hostility toward the EP of Romanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, and Albanians has deeper roots, going back to its role under the Ottomans. Most discontent amongst American Orthodox of any jurisdiction, however, has 20th c roots, whether because of the calendar, because of the EP's cozy relationship with Rome, or both.
While the situation in England could be brushed off as irrelevant, it really isn't. A scab is being picked that could really start to bleed. The canonical situation in Western Europe is no more clear than is the canonical situation in America, and yet you would *never* find a GOA bishop taking in Orthodox clergy or parishes from *any* Orthodox jurisdiction in the US -- OCA, Antiochian, Serbian, MP, ROCOR... -- without a formal canonical release. Only a couple of rogue ROCOR bishops ever engaged in such activity, and only during a couple of decades of the 20th c. Their activity is to be roundly condemned, and I know for a fact that at least one of those bishops called his OCA counterpart on his deathbed and begged for his forgiveness for having received clergy without a canonical release.
For the most part, even during the days of greatest hostility, even the OCA and ROCOR were usually (but not always) polite enough to make sure that canonical releases were requested and obtained for any clergy or parishes wanting to transfer.
I know for a fact that Metropolitan Phillip of the Antiochians was very rigid about this -- even when receiving a priest from the ROCOR, with whom they were not in communion. I daresay the same has been true of the Greeks. This does not mean that either the general "Russian side" or the general "Greek side" in the question of North American canonical arguments was yielding their position -- it was simple good manners. If anything, the Greeks here in America have had among the best canonical manners of anybody.
And if it can be done here in America, it can surely be done in Western Europe, and yet it wasn't. But here is why it is different: first, the group involved in leaving the MP for the EP was a pretty kooky one. It was a very small and very wealthy bunch of Anglicized Russians and English upper-class converts. They liked their own theologically liberal, intellectualized, little upper-class English Orthodox world, and did absolutely nothing to deal with the influx of Slavic immigrants desperately needing churches, priests, and ministry. Metropolitan Anthony Bloom -- need I say more?
What happened was that when the MP became free to start dealing with the situation of Russian emigres in Western Europe and made it clear that there was a new sheriff in town, this group realized that they were going to be overwhelmed by ignorant unwashed masses who didn't speak with Oxbridge accents, and they didn't like it. It isn't a whole lot more complicated than that. This group of English Orthodox has been well-known within the "Russian diaspora" for many decades, and are roughly analogous to the "Paris school" that produced people like Schmemann and Meyendorff. They were renowned not only for failing to minister to immigrants, but also for chasing off "the wrong kind" of convert.
In one sense, it is "good riddance," but there is a bigger issue. In Western Europe, the MP and the ROCOR have for some decades had excellent relationships. There is no equivalent to the "OCA" in Western Europe, so the union between MP and ROCOR is going to be sudden, full, and dramatic. There will be a lot of pull on those Russian parishes under the EP, considering Western Europe as a whole, to join this unified Russian church in Europe. This is a major threat to the EP's claims over Orthodoxy in Western Europe, and thus they did something in England that they would *never* have done in North America or Australia. It was a pre-emptive power strike, pure and simple.
Yes, we converts most certainly can be like that. And when our worse xenoi instincts are fed by, rather than tempered by cradle Orthodox, it is a very bad combo. It happens on both the liberal and conservative ends of the Orthodox spectrum.
"It happens on both the liberal and conservative ends of the Orthodox spectrum."
NOOOOOOOOOOO, really? :)
"It is a bit amusing, however, given the pretentions of the EP, which probably has more bishops than faithful, and yet which styles itself the "worldwide head of Orthodoxy" as though the Byzantine empire still existed, for its representatives to use the word "hubris" to describe Russian attitudes. For if hubris means anything, it is thinking that one is something when one is not. Russians might be arrogant, overbearing, phyletistic, or all three (I could give you examples!) -- but they are not being hubristic when thinking themselves to be the 2000 lb gorilla of post-Byzantine Orthodoxy. "
LMAO.
Very well said, and free from bias.
Perhaps well said, but hardly free from bias. But by acknowledging my prejudices, I try to maintain some semblance of objectivity.
There is too much intemperance in the Orthodox world-- "zeal not according to knowledge", as it were.
I think it was less biased than I tend to be. And so it seemed very free from bias.
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.