Lo
#0
So I was sitting here thinking tonight technically we here in America should be addressing ourselves by the title, \"Orthodox Christian.\" (Priest told me this) But for some strange reason I\'ve noticed many refer to themselves as Greek, Russian, Romanian, etc... Even in our profiles we have put down which specific branch we are attending.
I have noticed two things, first those of the OCA don\'t say they are OCA, they just say they go to the Orthodox Church in America.
Second my friends abroad don\'t say they are Greek, Romanian, Russian etc.. they just say they are Orthodox.
Ok I can understand confusion for someone who knows nothing about us, when I say, \"I\'m Orthodox.\"
I can understand pride in the church or your culture and wish to be associated with it.
But why is it here in America we identify ourselves by which Patriarch / Country affiliation we are under? We are all one in Christ, not one in ... Greece, Romania, Russia etc...
Any thoughts, insight, or differing opinions or experiences on this are welcome. I\'m curious here on a cultural level.
Be the first person to like this.
View All Previous Posts
Ni
#9
OrthodoxRose wrote:
Lately I'm rather scandalized by the whole "jurisdiction" situation. I mean really, we're not supposed to have more than one Bishop in any given metropolis, but there are some cities in the US with 3 or 4 or 5 or even 7 Orthodox Bishops. It's shameful and scandalous. :(
Be the first person to like this.
Ni
#10
(lol sorry! hit enter too soon.)
i agree that having more than one bishop per metropolis is a bad situation. im also wondering how the situation arose?
Be the first person to like this.
Lo
#7
I think the whole one bishop per metropolis is still an underlying issue.
When the people of an autocephalous church moved abroad if there wasn\'t a local Orthodox jurisdiction, often they brought Orthodoxy with them. So priests eventually came and well that didn\'t automatically mean these priests spoke the local language, so the local church became a cultural one. Eventually bishops came or were ordained by the respective autocephalous church as things became more organized.
Be the first person to like this.
Marie Moffitt
#8
It all started with Marx.
The situation arose after the Russian Revolution, when the Russian Church, previously in charge of the US and its territories, fell into a shambles, all funds and most communication were cut off, and nobody knew whom to trust.
At that point, the Russian Church already in the US formed the Russian Metropolia as a way to manage until things could be sorted out. They stayed in that \"interim\" status until the tomos of autocephaly in 1970 or so.
Non-Russians didn\'t want to get mixed up in the political mess and could no longer get priests from the Russians so they appealed to bishops in their various ethnic homelands, who sent priests and eventually bishops.
Of course it\'s a bad situation. Everybody has admitted this for at least fifty years that I can remember. The Holy Spirit, as we pray at ordinations, supplies what is lacking and we manage via economia, just as the Church always has.
Never try to apply Western legal principles to Orthodoxy - it\'s not our tradition and it will only make you crazy.
Be the first person to like this.
Marie Moffitt
#6
For Louis I should point out that when the Russian church was in charge of the whole US, it provided some Greek-speaking priests from the Crimea. These men were already bilingual in Russian and Greek, and quickly learned English.
The Russian writer Anton Chekhov and his brothers actually went to a Greek-language grade school in Taganrog.
I have often heard stories about how much English was in use in Russian parishes the US in the 1930\'s and 1940\'s, and how it disappeared with the big postwar influx of displaced persons. I used to belong to a Greek parish that was founded in 1938 to use English - the Greek Archdiocese wouldn\'t allow that at the time, so the parish became part of the Russian Metropolia (now the OCA) and remained there until the founding priest died and the Greek Archdiocese loosened up on having Sunday school and sermons in English.
Be the first person to like this.
FC
#5
MariaM wrote:
the Russian Church, previously in charge of the US and its territories,
... and Canada!
:D :D :D
Oh, c\'mon! You just knew I was going to pipe up with that! :grin:
Be the first person to like this.
Ji
#4
MariaM wrote:
It all started with Marx.
The situation arose after the Russian Revolution, when the Russian Church, previously in charge of the US and its territories, fell into a shambles, all funds and most communication were cut off, and nobody knew whom to trust.
At that point, the Russian Church already in the US formed the Russian Metropolia as a way to manage until things could be sorted out. They stayed in that "interim" status until the tomos of autocephaly in 1970 or so.
Non-Russians didn't want to get mixed up in the political mess and could no longer get priests from the Russians so they appealed to bishops in their various ethnic homelands, who sent priests and eventually bishops.
Of course it's a bad situation. Everybody has admitted this for at least fifty years that I can remember. The Holy Spirit, as we pray at ordinations, supplies what is lacking and we manage via economia, just as the Church always has.
Never try to apply Western legal principles to Orthodoxy - it's not our tradition and it will only make you crazy.
Maria, the situation is the same in every country where immigrants have settled, be it in the US, Canada, Australia, etc. For instance, the first Orthodox services in Australia were held in the 1890s, some 30 years before the Russian Revolution and its aftermath. Right from the start, each ethnicity (Greek, Arab, etc) set up its own churches and episcopates, etc. There were instances of priests of one ethnicity serving briefly (as a relief priest, for instance) in another\'s church, but this was very much ad hoc.
Be the first person to like this.
Fr. John Moses
#3
The simple answer to your question is no, I am not an Orthodox Christian.
OH, I was baptized and I am now a priest, but I cannot claim the title in good conscience. After all, I hardly fast, I pray little, I repent but only in a shallow way, and so on. Hardly the way anyone who claims the title would act.
Even less am I a Russian Orthodox Christian, for I only admire the Russian saints, but do little to be like them.
So, really, no, I am not an Orthodox Christian. But I aspire to the position.
Be the first person to like this.
FC
#2
frj1951,
That\'s the best answer yet. Can I use it? :)
Be the first person to like this.
ZM
#31
I agree with Cyprian, frj1951, that is a good answer. But can we not be Orthodox without being holy and perfect? Isn\'t it ok to be sinful (but repentant) and be \"Orthodox Chrisitans\" or members of the Orthodox Christan Church?
Be the first person to like this.
Lo
#34
frj1951 wrote:
The simple answer to your question is no, I am not an Orthodox Christian.
OH, I was baptized and I am now a priest, but I cannot claim the title in good conscience. After all, I hardly fast, I pray little, I repent but only in a shallow way, and so on. Hardly the way anyone who claims the title would act.
Even less am I a Russian Orthodox Christian, for I only admire the Russian saints, but do little to be like them.
So, really, no, I am not an Orthodox Christian. But I aspire to the position.
BRAVO! Truly the humbleness I can only dream of! (no sarcasm intended)
Be the first person to like this.
Marie Moffitt
#1
The difference is that in the US there was one recognized Orthodox authority - the Church of Russia - officially serving all Orthodox Christians until the Russian Revolution. The Church of Russia provided priests for all Orthodox Christians, and tried to provide for various linguistic communities, but those priests all belonged to the same jurisdiction and answered to the same bishops.
In the US, each ethnicity did NOT have its own churches and bishops \"right from the start.\"
Be the first person to like this.
RM
#35
I tell others I am and Eastern Orthodox Christian. There is no need to explain which juristiction if others do not ask me.
Be the first person to like this.
EP
#36
MariaM wrote:
The difference is that in the US there was one recognized Orthodox authority - the Church of Russia - officially serving all Orthodox Christians until the Russian Revolution. The Church of Russia provided priests for all Orthodox Christians, and tried to provide for various linguistic communities, but those priests all belonged to the same jurisdiction and answered to the same bishops.
In the US, each ethnicity did NOT have its own churches and bishops \"right from the start.\"
The historical evidence does not support this conclusion. The notion that all Orthodox in America were under the Church of Russia till 1917 is a myth. Sources from the late 19th and early 20th century confirm that the ecclesiastical situation in America was not well organized or defined, and that the Russians themselves could only claim nominal rule over the Arabs (in the person of St. Raphael--who was just as much an agent of the Church of Antioch as of the Church of Russia, if not more so of Antioch), and no rule over the vast majority of Greeks--to say nothing of the other groups. Church records, newspaper articles, and actual documents from bishops of the pre-1917 period are the most reliable primary sources in this field of study. That which comes later, secondary sources, decades after the fact, must be questioned and investigated.
Be the first person to like this.
El
#37
Maybe because we are a country of imigrents. Lots of antiochian missions that are now thriveing parrishes once had arabic identies . But now that the cradel Orthodox are outnumbered by converts they now just say we are Orthodox .
Be the first person to like this.