Greek Orthodox Church of Australia and Converts
Christopher
I found this on the net at
http://www.cygnus.uwa.edu.au/~jgrapsas/pages/convert.html
This is an Australian Greek Orthodox Site. There are things about this
that are quite disturbing if one reads "between the lines." One gets the
impression that the Greek Church down under has very little interest in
converts. Hellenic disdain for Xenoi and Barbaroi?? Does anyone know if
the Greek Church in Australia is stuck in a "ghetto" mentality?? Or am I
reading too much into this.
To convert or not to convert?
by Fr Leonidas
No priestly act is of more far-reaching consequence than a conversion to
Orthodoxy. It crucially determines for all time the convert's personal
status, his marital rights and restrictions as well as his religious
allegiance. If a pledge of unqualified loyalty to the Orthodox Church is
subsequently betrayed, the result is disastrous, not least for the priest
involved, should he have been guilty of an error of judgement in
authorising the conversion on insufficient evidence of sincerity. In that
event, he is bound to feel some personal responsibility and liability for
every violation of Canon Law the convert may commit. For only through his
act in accepting a non-Orthodox into the Orthodox Church do actions like
not attending the Sacraments or not keeping the fast days become grave
breaches of Canon Law. Little wonder that many conscientious priests,
under the weight of this crushing responsibility, contemplate conversions
with extreme, sometimes perhaps excessive, hesitation.
The conditions for becoming an Orthodox Christian are simple enough in
definition. A properly qualified catechist, after instructing the
candidate, must be satisfied that the candidate is genuinely willing and
able to accept the religious discipline of the Orthodox Church without
reservation, whereupon the formal act of conversion is carried out,
either by baptism where the candidate has not been previously baptised in
the name of the Holy Trinity, or by the Sacrament of Holy Chrismation,
and the signing. of a letter by which the candidate on the one hand is
renouncing his former faith and on the other confessing his Orthodox
faith.
Conversion under these conditions is open to any person, irrespective of
race, colour or previous creed. A person so converted then has all the
rights and obligations of any Orthodox Christian. Strictly speaking, the
actual conversion from any faith (or none) to Orthodoxy is of course
carried out by the proselyte himself. The desire to become an Orthodox
Christian is brought about by radical changes inside a person's heart
determining all his future loyalties, his thinking, feelings and actions,
the mould of his very personality.
A conversion is the most delicate heart operation to which a person.could
ever submit, and the onus rests on the candidate to prove that he is
adequately prepared to undergo such an operation. Some may complete the
requisite preparation in intensive study and environmental experience in
a matter of months; others lacking in determination or opportunity, may
never be ready even after years of fruitless effort.
How long this process takes is determined by the candidate not the
priest. The ultimate test is certainly not the candidate's love for an
Orthodox party he or she seeks to marry. On the contrary, such an
ulterior motive will militate against accepting the application.
The criterion is the love of Orthodoxy, generated by such thorough
familiarity and fascination with the Orthodox way of life as to render
all sacrifices and obstacles. Only if this love and belief in Orthodoxy,
in theory and practice, transcends any other love and loyalty, are the
conditions for admission truly fulfilled. But why are these conditions so
rigid and demanding?
Almost every candidate (and many Greek Orthodox) question their justice
with the seemingly plausible argument: why should so much more be
expected of a convert than most Orthodox are prepared to do for their
Orthodoxy? Why should converts be more punctilious in their religious
observance than are the majority of Orthodox?
To begin with, we have no special interest in swelling our number by
conversions. As Orthodox Christians we have a spiritual task and duty to
perform so numbers are relatively immaterial to the success of our
mission on earth. True proselytes are welcome, but converts of
questionable loyalty attenuate rather than consolidate our strength.
Throughout the Christian era the Orthodox Church has been exposed to
constant oppression and frequent massacres. Yet no Orthodox Christian
ever worried about the survival of the Orthodox Church. Therefore the
survival of the Orthodox Church does not depend on numbers, but solely on
the intensity of our Orthodox commitment.
Moreover, a conversion is a religious naturalisation. Even for a civil
naturalisation - though effecting infinitely less significantly the
innermost belief, the whole personality and the daily routine of the life
of the applicant - certain rigid requirements are universally accepted.
For the grant of citizenship, countries usually required a period of at
least two years, fluency in the vernacular, and certainly ready
submission to all the laws of the land. Any alien declaring his readiness
to observe all the country's laws except one would be refused his
naturalisation, and it would not help him to argue that there are many
native citizens who also sometimes transgress one regulation or another.
In these matters it is all or nothing.
Yet when would-be converts are told that it may take two years or more to
gain the required knowledge and religious atmosphere (which even those
Orthodox who were baptised at birth must cultivate through years of
religious education, plus living in an Orthodox Christian environment
from birth), that they are expected to have some familiarity with the
Greek language, and that they must undertake to observe the Canon Law of
the Orthodox Church, they argue, often amid a chorus of popular Greek
applause, why should we have to meet requirements which so many Greeks
fall short of?
It would be of little avail to an applicant for Australian citizenship to
resort to a similar argument. The incontestable answer would be that
anyone born of Australian parents - whether good, bad or indifferent,
whether he knows English and abides by the law or not - is Australian.
Even a criminal's citizenship cannot be disowned. But if a foreigner
wants to become Australian, every effort may and must be made to ensure
that he will prove a law-abiding citizen, an asset and not a liability.
Likewise parents must accept their natural child, healthy or crippled,
upright or delinquent.
But in adopting a child, they are free to choose, entitled to take all
reasonable precautions to make sure that the child will be a source of
pride and joy to them. Surely the arguments in favour of similar
safeguards in admitting persons to the Orthodox faith and people are no
less compelling or convincing.
Within these general principles, there is of course a degree of
variation. Since the assessment of a candidate's sincerity and the
inadequacy of his preparation is subject to a human estimation, there is
bound to be a subjective factor in any such judgment. One priest may be
more credulous, another more suspicious in accepting a declaration of
submission to Orthodoxy. Diverse local conditions, too, may have an
important bearing on the decision to admit proselytes.
In Greece, for instance, where all converts will certainly live in an
Orthodox environment, learn Greek, send their children to Greek schools
where religion is taught, and observe the Orthodox calendar - at least in
great measure - and where there is hardly any opportunity of becoming
integrated into non-Orthodox society, it is obviously far easier to
accept converts than in the Diaspora where these conditions do not exist.
Naturally, the circumstances prompting an application will invariably be
taken into account. A woman who wants to become an Orthodox Christian
because she has fallen in love with a Greek, seeking to change her
religion almost like one changes a passport on being married, will find
far less sympathy than parents who wish to convert an adopted non-
Orthodox child because they could find no Orthodox child.
Extreme compassion will also be shown in cases of non-Orthodox children
from mixed marriages. But these are clearly exceptions. As a rule, it
will be found that anyone prepared to change his religion neither had a
deep religious allegiance before the change nor will have one after the
change. Those who can be, and are, admitted to the Orthodox Church indeed
turn out to be rather exceptional people.
True proselytes live up to the qualifications so concisely expressed by
the most famous of them all, when Ruth the Moabite pledged:
"Where you go, I will go; and where you lodge for the night, I will
lodge"
- sharing the life of the people she converted to;
"your people will be my people"
- joining the togetherness of the people she converted to;
"and your God will be my God"
- serving as a witness to religious commitments
"where you die, I will die, and there shall I be buried" (Ruth 1:16-17)
- defending the beliefs and practices even to the grave.
Anyone prepared to follow Ruth's example of total loyalty will be
accepted into the Orthodox faith with open arms. But in the absence of
such candidates, we should occupy ourselves with the challenge to convert
should-be Greek Orthodox, rather than would-be Greek-Orthodox, to
Orthodoxy.
Phil (Silouan) Thompson
> This is an Australian Greek Orthodox Site. There are things about this
> that are quite disturbing if one reads "between the lines." One gets the
> impression that the Greek Church down under has very little interest in
> converts. Hellenic disdain for Xenoi and Barbaroi?? Does anyone know if
> the Greek Church in Australia is stuck in a "ghetto" mentality?? Or am I
> reading too much into this.
Hi Christopher
I wondered what they meant by "canon law" - can't say I've heard that
expression outside of Roman Catholic circles before. And the part about
knowing some Greek seemed odd - but then, if for some bizarre reason a
person really wanted to join a parish that used the Greek language, he'd
best buckle down and learn the high points at least - otherwise it'll just
be hours of pretty musical gibberish.
Otherwise, though, I thought the article was refreshing. The persecuted
Church of the second and third centuries developed long catechumenates to
ensure potential converts had plenty of time to be offended and back out;
and the legalized Church of the fourth century wisely kept the practice in
place. Here in cultures hostile to godly values, where Orthodoxy is legal
but seen as marginal in importance, where "church-floaters" bounce from one
movement to another, and where Orthodoxy seems to be becoming a temporary
fad, there's definitely a place for a long catechumenate and a healthy dose
of reality before a starry-eyed convert should be allowed to make a lifetime
commitment to Orthodoxy.
I can identify with the writer's puzzlement, though. Orthodoxy is
demonstrably the Church, and for all its dysfuntionality, it's still where
we ought to be, but why on earth would anybody want to join the *Greek*
Orthodox Church? There are plenty of other equally Orthodox jurisdictions
where they speak a modern language and aren't fixated on racial issues.
What do you think?
--Silouan
a member the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, incidentally
evagr...@my-deja.com
It seems to me that the author of the article represents an attitude of
religious chauvinism, in a certain sense.
Very peculiar but not surprising.
Your observation on a long catechumenate being necessary in the early
church is correct-but is it practiced now anywhere?
And......the distinction the author made between converts and cradle
born is typically blind.
The cradle Orthodox should know more and don't. His attitude excuses
their behavior, ignorance and lack of participation.
That alone makes his points invalid.
There is "canon law" in the Orthodox Church. It's found in The Rudder.
Why converts should be more bound to its rules and regulations than
cradle born is peculiar.
In article <t44kilt...@corp.supernews.com>,
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Phil (Silouan) Thompson
> Your observation on a long catechumenate being necessary in the
> early church is correct-but is it practiced now anywhere?
Looks to me like it's at the discretion of the priest (as I suppose it
should be). My priest knew me personally for a long time, as I was one of
several Protestant pastors who attended services at our parish while
planning to convert as soon as we could get free from prior commitments. So
he knew where I was at. But still, after I'd been attending services and
classes for almost two years, he had me remain a catechumen for another six
months or so. Among other things, it taught me to be *hungry* for the
Eucharist and to value very highly the privilege of communing. The long
shake-out period did get me through the awful disillusionment that happens
when a starry-eyed convert realizes Orthodoxy is not all wonderful - well
before I was scheduled to be received into the Church.
I know a few dozen people whose parishes were received en masse into
Orthodoxy before they knew what they were getting into. (Including a deacon
whose first Orthodox Liturgy was the one at which he was ordained!) They
are now among the ones who most strongly recommend a long catechumenate,
since they don't want anyone else to go through what they did.
I'd be interested to know if any diocese has guidelines for the
catechumenate: How long? What should a convert be expected to know? Is it
required that one sign a lettter renouncing erroneous beliefs or something?
I wonder if any diocese has guidelines like these, to ensure that we're
providing reliable catechesis.
Silouan
GS
Christopher wrote:
>
> I found this on the net at
>
> http://www.cygnus.uwa.edu.au/~jgrapsas/pages/convert.html
>
> This is an Australian Greek Orthodox Site. There are things about this
> that are quite disturbing if one reads "between the lines." One gets the
> impression that the Greek Church down under has very little interest in
> converts. Hellenic disdain for Xenoi and Barbaroi?? Does anyone know if
> the Greek Church in Australia is stuck in a "ghetto" mentality?? Or am I
> reading too much into this.
I think that Father Leonidas (I know nothing of this Father Leonidas nor
of the Greek Orthodox in Australia) wrote contrary to your perceptions.
Note what I am putting in parentheses, to perhaps assist you in
understanding his perceptions. He made a point about converts in Greece
who would (naturally as this would be their country) learn Greek, be an
integral part of the culture( predominately Orthodox, as citizens). But
he suggested no requirement on the part of Australians to learn Greek,
indicated that it is important for the convert to be genuine about the
faith and attest to leaving the old religion, a condition which I think
is wise, in order that the Church does not end up with apostates, i.e.
it would be better to have someone making their decision for a long time
rather than just converting over falling in love with a Greek woman or
guy.
In saying "proselytes are welcome, but converts of questionable loyalty
attenuate rather than consolidate our strength only emphasized the
seriousness of conversion and alluded to the danger of having lukewarm
or half converted Christians in a congregation, a situation that I can
assure you is incredibly important. To say "I believe", to say the
Creed and mean it, is not the same as religious relativism of the "I'm
ok, you're ok " variety in terms of belief, because it would be a way of
saying that parts of that Faith were either not important or
negotiable. He contrasted the decision making of conversion with
gaining citizenship in a country - and if viewed in terms not of dual
but sole citizenship, the analogy is extremely apt, as converts often
leave the ways of mother, father, sister and brother and their whole
upbringing in order to become Christians.
As a further example of how his sermon could not possibly be regarded as
racist or exclusionist in any manner, one has only to look at the
following concluding thoughts after he suggested Ruth's decisions as a
model for becoming Orthodox suggesting that "should be Greek Orthodox"
should be converted as well, to the fullness of the faith and the level
of permanence and commitment that implies:
> True proselytes live up to the qualifications so concisely expressed by
> the most famous of them all, when Ruth the Moabite pledged:
>
> "Where you go, I will go; and where you lodge for the night, I will
> lodge"
> - sharing the life of the people she converted to;
>
> "your people will be my people"
> - joining the togetherness of the people she converted to;
>
> "and your God will be my God"
> - serving as a witness to religious commitments
>
> "where you die, I will die, and there shall I be buried" (Ruth 1:16-17)
> - defending the beliefs and practices even to the grave.
>
> Anyone prepared to follow Ruth's example of total loyalty will be
> accepted into the Orthodox faith with open arms. But in the absence of
> such candidates, we should occupy ourselves with the challenge to convert
> should-be Greek Orthodox, rather than would-be Greek-Orthodox, to
> Orthodoxy.
The only single word I would change in his sermon would be Greek,
because what he has to say is valuable for all heritages Orthodox as
well as Greeks. Substitute the word "Americans" or Lebanese" or Rusyn"
and you will see what I mean.
Galina Schneider
Christopher Beattie
evagr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Your observation on a long catechumenate being necessary in the early
> church is correct-but is it practiced now anywhere?
In the Roman Catholic Church, the conversion process for adults is
termed the "Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults" and can take
several years of prayerful study and preparation.
--
Peace & Good!
Christopher Beattie SFO
KOC, SPEBSQSA, et.al.
Alexander Arnakis
<cla...@killspamchartertn.net> wrote:
>
>This is an Australian Greek Orthodox Site. There are things about this
>that are quite disturbing if one reads "between the lines." One gets the
>impression that the Greek Church down under has very little interest in
>converts. Hellenic disdain for Xenoi and Barbaroi?? Does anyone know if
>the Greek Church in Australia is stuck in a "ghetto" mentality?? Or am I
>reading too much into this.
>
>
>To convert or not to convert?
>by Fr Leonidas
>
Christopher: Your thinking is in the right direction.
A bit of background is in order:
After World War II, there was quite a large Greek immigration to
Australia. Yet, the Greek immigrant experience in Australia was rather
different from the Greek immigrant experience in the United States,
and more closely resembled that of Greek "guest workers" in Germany.
On the one hand, the intent of many Greeks going to Australia was not
to settle permanently, but to make their fortunes and return to
Greece. (That was also the intent of the early waves of those who came
to America, but for many reasons *that* intent was generally
frustrated.)
On the other hand, Australia indeed was not a particularly welcoming
place for the Greeks. It turned out that the society was not as open
as it seemed, particularly for non-Anglo-Saxons. So there is much more
of a ghetto mentality among the Greeks of Australia than among the
Greeks of the U.S.
The Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a "white paper" online,
analyzing the patterns of Greek emigration and returning immigration.
Over the years, the number one target of Greek migration has been the
United States, but relatively few of those migrants have returned (and
hardly any in recent years). Conversely, the percentage returning to
Greece of those who went to Germany is quite high, and the percentage
of returning immigration from Australia is not far behind.
So it seems that in Australia, group defensiveness by the Greeks is
the order of the day.
Fr. Leonidas is certainly doing his best to keep "strangers" out of
this besieged community.
What he writes may be technically correct, but it defies common sense.
Why should converts be held to a higher standard of "Orthodoxy" than
those who were raised within the community? He well knows that Greek
adherence to the Fasts, etc., is generally honored in the violation.
And he reserves particular disapproval for those whose motive for
conversion is to marry an Orthodox. Is he worried about "sullying the
gene pool"?
Any prospective convert with a grain of sense should ignore such
artificial restrictions... or simply ignore the institutional Church
altogether...
GS
Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>
>
> And he reserves particular disapproval for those whose motive for
> conversion is to marry an Orthodox. Is he worried about "sullying the
> gene pool"?
I just don't see this at all in what he wrote. Point it out to me
Alexander Arnakis
>>
>> And he reserves particular disapproval for those whose motive for
>> conversion is to marry an Orthodox. Is he worried about "sullying the
>> gene pool"?
>
>I just don't see this at all in what he wrote. Point it out to me
>
It's there. I don't have it in front of me to quote at the moment.
He puts the burden of proving their "bona fides" much higher on those
coming to the Church because of a prospective marriage than on anyone
else.
It seems that he strongly wants to discourage marriage between Greeks
and the "xenoi."
DrGeor107b
>impression that the Greek Church down under has very little interest in
>converts. <<
Chris my old firend! The problem down under has a lot to do with the spiritual
head of the Greek Orthodox Church there. He is seen as the most bull headed,
biggoted, antagonistic, and anti-missionary hierarch in all of the world. The
EP has often used this man as a stick to try to beat his critics into
submission. He was sent to America as part of a triumpharate to "usher"
Archbishop Iakovos into retirement. While here he made a tour of the diocese
and held meetings with the clergy. I attended one such question and answer
sessions at Holy Cross at the time. A priest stood up and asked the Archbishop
what he saw the mission of the Greek Orthodox Church in America as being.
Archbishop Stylianos quickly replied:
" The mission of the Church in America is to serve the needs of the
Greek, period, end of discussion. "
He then added in a loud voice:
" You priests in America think you are safe. You are not. We know who you are
and we can get you if we want. You better sit down now. "
No one else dared to ask a question.
Later on, at the tail end of the crisis in the GOA, this was the man that the
EP wanted to send to America as a replacement for Archbishop Spyridon. I
suppose it was meant to put us in our places. Praise God that the Holy Spirit
intervened and send us the man we now have. The new, just released encyclical
or pastoral letter by the Bishops in SCOBA, is a lesson in contrasts between
what is of God and what is from the stupidity of vain and shallow men. There
but by the Grace of God were we!
In Christ,
Dr. George
Alexander Arnakis
>Archbishop Stylianos quickly replied:
>
> " The mission of the Church in America is to serve the needs of the
>Greek, period, end of discussion. "
>
This is a common attitude. I would say that 99% of the hierarchs in
Greece share those sentiments. They see the Church as a leading organ
of the Ethnos.
GS
No, I don't see that in his talk, only that he wants to discourage
conversions for the sake of ceremony as opposed to choice and belief.
DrGeor107b
of the Ethnos.
>Subject: Re: Greek Orthodox Church of Australia and Converts
>From: Alexander Arnakis alexande...@mail.verizon.net
>Date: 12/22/2000 8:02 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <a6k64t41egahbg39p...@4ax.com>
While I cannot comment on the percentages, I concur that many hierarchs
in Greece and abroad, feel this way. Isolated in a country where they don't
really have to deal with people of other faiths, it is very easy to develop
such parochial attitudes. Yet this is not only wrong, such beliefs are a
betrayl of the Church and indeed heretical vioaltions of the great commision.
Christ did not say:
Go and baptize all Greeks in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit!
Believe it or not, He Himself in the incarnation took on the form of a xeno, a
non Greek! ( Go figure !)
Metropolitan Amilianos, who spent 40 byears of his life representing
Orthodoxy at the WCC in Geneva, once told me about hierarchs such as those you
mentioned:
" They think of me as not being Orthodox, because I enter into dialogs
with the non Orthodox. It is they however who have let their Orthodoxy grow
cold by ignoring the missionary aspects of their faith. To them witness and
dialog is something optional, often to be avoided so as not to dilute the
faith. With me, it is an every day necessity, where I have found myself having
the faith constantly challenge from every direction. I tell then in Greece
that it is I who am the true Orthodox because of it."
It is possible to engage in dialog, without compromise. Dialog is one
very valuable tool in the missions field. It was indispensable in the early
Church. Look at St. Paul' s speach to the Athenians or Justin Martyrs " DIalog
with Trypho the Jew.
In Christ,
Dr. George
DrGeor107b
>From: Alexander Arnakis alexande...@mail.verizon.net
>Date: 12/22/2000 8:02 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <a6k64t41egahbg39p...@4ax.com>
>
Let's compare this attitude with that expressed by some excerpts from the
first joint encyclical from the SCOBA bishops:
>>“You are the salt of the earth.” The word is entrusted to you, Christ
says, not for your life but for the whole world. Nor am I sending you to two
cities, or ten or twenty, nor to one people, as I once sent the prophets, but
over land and sea, to the whole world, a world in very evil condition. <<
>Recently some have begun to speak of the “Liturgy after the Liturgy.” This
>means that the spiritual work of the Divine Liturgy must continue even as we
>leave the Church. As we are changed, so must we work for that change within
>the society around us. As we are sanctified, so we are charged with bringing
>this sanctification into the world.
>79. One of the unique qualities of the modern era is that the average person
>in many parts of the world encounters a degree of diversity – cultural,
>philosophical, and religious – unprecedented in human history.
>Although encountering people with worldviews different than our own can be
>enriching, it can also cause tension and conflict. We see this on the world
>stage just as we see this in our own neighborhoods. How can we be one human
>people while still preserving what is unique about each of
>us? This question has been the Church’s concern from the beginning, but it
>takes on a new urgency in our own time.
> The Orthodox Church has always used this Pentecost event as a way to
>understand how diverse people can be one in Christ. Historically, unity of
>faith has not necessitated one language or even one uniform practice for the
>entire Church. Sharing one faith, we can be one Church, even as we
>acknowledge our ethnic and cultural diversity. The question is, what are the
>“limits to diversity”? When does difference in practice become
>difference in faith?
>85. The problem for the Apostles and those first Christians was not simply
>preaching monotheism to a polytheistic world. It was to make a Gospel, that
>presupposed very different categories, relevant to a culture that was in many
>ways hostile to the Christian worldview. The debates surrounding the
>Ecumenical Councils and other local councils of the Patristic period testify
>to the fact that the process of “inculturating” the Gospel – that is,
>showing how the Gospel speaks to the issues relevant to a particular people,
>time, and culture – was not an easy task.
>
>90. When the Gospel entered a new cultural situation, it engaged that culture
>on its own terms. The people who were responsible for preaching and teaching
>did not hide from this responsibility.
>They did not try to make the Greek and Roman world into a Semitic one.
>They were themselves full participants in that world. But they gave Christian
>answers to the religious and philosophical questions that were being asked.
> We presently live in a world that has been shaped by the principles of the
>Enlightenment, but this worldview has reached the limits of its
>possibilities. The Church must detach the Gospel from this worldview. We live
>in a period of cultural transition. If we are to avoid being marginalized, we
>need to learn a lesson from the Patristic period and enter into a deep
>dialogue with the surrounding culture. People long to know God. They are
>searching
>for the truth. If we do not help them with their search, others certainly
>will be stepping into the breach.
>
>People long to know God. They are searching
>for the truth. If we do not help them with their search, others certainly
>will be stepping into the breach.
>. When we look at the society in which we live, we see that even though its
>roots traditionally may be Christian, nonetheless, there has been a steady
>distancing from these roots. We certainly observe this to be the case here in
>North America, and it is also more and more true in traditionally Orthodox
>countries. We see a growing number of people who are actively searching for
>‘meaning’ in their lives, however they might understand that word.
>There has been a rise in attention given to various religions and
>philosophies presenting themselves as alternatives to Christianity. What is
>very significant is the large number of people who have grown up outside of
>any Church, with only the most superficial, and often confused, understanding
>of the Gospel. In short, our own society has become a primary “missionary
>territory.”
> Unlike other times and places, when the Gospel was preached, most people in
>our society believe that they already know what Christianity has to say.
>Our challenge is to frame the proclamation of the Good News so that it speaks
>in a new and
>fresh way, breaking through these prejudices.
>
__________________________
Quite a contrast wouldn't you say? Now which is the more Orthodox? Is it the
old world xenophobic view of Orthodoxy or that articulated by the SCOBA
Bishops?
In Christ,
Dr. George
Alexander Arnakis
>
>No, I don't see that in his talk, only that he wants to discourage
>conversions for the sake of ceremony as opposed to choice and belief.
OK -- here's the quote:
"How long this process takes is determined by the candidate not the
priest. The ultimate test is certainly not the candidate's love for an
Orthodox party he or she seeks to marry. On the contrary, such an
ulterior motive will militate against accepting the application."
And --
Alexander Arnakis
>
>Let's compare this attitude with that expressed by some excerpts from the
>first joint encyclical from the SCOBA bishops:
>
>
>
>Quite a contrast wouldn't you say? Now which is the more Orthodox? Is it the
>old world xenophobic view of Orthodoxy or that articulated by the SCOBA
>Bishops?
>
Archbishop Iakovos and many of the bishops active in SCOBA, have found
themselves opposed by the Ecumenical Patriarch and the hierarchy of
the Old Country.
The clergy of Greece see themselves as Greek patriots, and part of
that role is keeping the Diaspora Greeks within the fold. The Church
is seen as a legitimate instrument for that end.
An "American Orthodox Church" is utterly anathema to the Church in
Greece, and to the Greek Establishment generally.
Greg Scully
Dear Dr George,
I have perhaps very much I could add to
this discussion, being both Australian, growing up in Sydney (where
the Greek Archdiocese is) and having a Greek family as my 'second'
family. Further, I am well acquainrted with one seminary student in St
Andrews Theological College right now (in his final year). It is
amazing that you thank God that this Archbishop is here in Australia
instead of America., I understand completely.
Privacy prevents me from stating too much
publically about the "Canonical Church" in Australia, but suffice let
me refer to the Greek Archdiocese's own published booklet on the
history of the Archdiocese. In that work are quotes and references
that confirm that HE Archbishop Stylianos has in place an agreement
with the Protestant heads of churches NOT to receive
proselytes/converts across denominational lines. This apparently was a
part of the agreement for them to obtain approvals for their Seminary
courses being 'approved' for Government and University status. In
Australia the government pays you to go to college (called Abstudy or
HECS) grants of up to $6,000 to $9,000 per annum per student and as
you can imagine every institution wants these approvals.
Conversely HE Eminence is known to accept invitations to preach in
multi-denominational Church functions (not criticising here just
noting) and my own sister attended one Uniting Church service in
Canberra where HE preached the sermon. Of course there was no call for
the heterodox and heretic to repent or turn, nor was there any request
for those outside of the sacramental life of the visible Church to
'Turn in here".
There is much more I could say but am constrained from saying it.
Needless to say, the Antiochene Church has thrived under these
conditions here and needless to say there has arisen amongst certain
Australians (of which I am one) the collection of rejected converts
and unwanted orthodox believers, of which Australia is strewn with
from the North to the South.
Arr jurisdictionalism and national phylitism, gotta love it don't
cha?
"Why you in this Church, you Greek?"
"Why are you here if you ain't Greek?"
"Go to the Anglicans down the road."
"Are you Copt?" "No" "Why are you here then?"
"Pray for our President" (Liturgy of Passion week-Australia has
NEVER had a President, it has a Soverign Queen, Governor General and
Prime Minister). In SIX YEARS I never heard ANY of the heads of state
of Australia prayed for in the Orthodox Churches here. (Not attended
Antiochene Liturgy) But I have prayed for Hosni Mubarrak, and the
rising/flooding of the Nile River a thousand times.
etc etc.
Lord have mercy.
+James, Presbyter.
"In truth the most difficult of sciences is to know oneself."
Saint Basil. Hexaemeron, Homily 9.
gjsc...@telstra.easymail.com.au
Holy Archangels Michael and Gabriel Orthodox Mission.
Brisbane, Australia.
Warecliff
>Archbishop Iakovos and many of the bishops active in SCOBA, have found
>themselves opposed by the Ecumenical Patriarch and the hierarchy of
>the Old Country.
I don't doubt that the foregoing may be why the Greek hierarchs seem to oppose
efforts towards an American Church, but I do doubt that the EP has any such
concerns. He's just after our money and "prestige" to bolster his claim to a
sort of Eastern papacy, something which the Western media has bought into hook,
line and sinker!
>The clergy of Greece see themselves as Greek patriots, and part of
>that role is keeping the Diaspora Greeks within the fold. The Church
>is seen as a legitimate instrument for that end.
>
>An "American Orthodox Church" is utterly anathema to the Church in
>Greece, and to the Greek Establishment generally.
>
In my experience, the Greek Establishment, clerical or otherwise, at least
those over the age of, say, forty, have absolutely no understanding of America
or Americans. My uncles in the Patrida all chuckle when I explain that I have
ancestors who fought in the American Revolution, died in the Great Hunger in
Ireland and others who were warriors of the Iroquois Federation, observing
"Malista, alla eisis Ellinas, Ellinas, Ellinas" (Yes, but you are Greek, Greek,
Greek!). When I try to explain that the Armenian Chinese kid down the street
who was born here, or the Somalians and Ethiopians up here who were recently
naturalized are just as American as my Yankee wife or I, they say that's all
very good, but you're Greek, Greek, Greek. When asked if the same thing could
happen in Greece, they say no, never. I suspect that what this bespeaks is the
whole omogenia thing and to their minds any nationality is just a coat one puts
on if one resides in a foreign land, perhaps to keep warm while sitting on the
banks of the river crying for one's lost homeland. I don't believe this is
peculiar to Greece. When I am in France, I always speak French, actually
Quebecois. My accent is apparently quite distinctive to the area around
Montreal. The French all treat me like a long lost cousin from across the sea,
as a Frenchman not a Canadian. When they find out I'm American and not at all
French or French Candadian, they are very surprised, but that's another story.
The Irish act the same way. In another context, I have observed the same thing
with South East Asians and Japanese.
My point is this. This omogenia stuff seems to be world wide. Our view of a
national society is limited to a very few countries, the US, Canada, Australia,
New Zealand and perhaps Chile, Argentina, Brazil and So. Africa. It is
dillusional for the Greeks (or any other ethnic or national group) to think the
way they do and wrong for us, either as the Church in America or as individuals
to encourage them in their dillusions.
Jack Clifford
Alexander Arnakis
>
>My point is this. This omogenia stuff seems to be world wide. Our view of a
>national society is limited to a very few countries, the US, Canada, Australia,
>New Zealand and perhaps Chile, Argentina, Brazil and So. Africa. It is
>delusional for the Greeks (or any other ethnic or national group) to think the
>way they do and wrong for us, either as the Church in America or as individuals
>to encourage them in their delusions.
>
It has been said that the U.S. is the first "universal country" (more
so than even the other countries you mention). There is such a mixture
of backgrounds in America, that no one group can lay claim to
predominance.
On the other hand, the Greek attitude, based on *their* national
experience, is "once a Greek, always a Greek," regardless of the
number of generations removed from the Old Country, or the degree of
admixture with other ethnicities.
At a reception in Athens in 1959, the old George Papandreou (Andreas'
father) asked my father, "Tell me, how many years does it take for a
Greek to become an American?" My father answered quite literally that
after five years of permanent residency, one could apply to become an
American citizen, etc. The Old Man was visibly disappointed. The
answer he expected was, "Never -- a Greek can never become an
American." (Of course, he was not entirely disinterested. His son,
Andreas, also a professor and a naturalized American citizen, had just
arrived in Greece and was planning to enter Greek politics.)
Whether the Greek thinking is "delusional" depends on your point of
view. As one who has his feet in both camps, I would say that neither
viewpoint is inherently unreasonable, given the working
presuppositions.
Andrew Kisliakov
Greg Scully wrote:
> "Pray for our President" (Liturgy of Passion week-Australia has
> NEVER had a President, it has a Soverign Queen, Governor General and
> Prime Minister). In SIX YEARS I never heard ANY of the heads of state
> of Australia prayed for in the Orthodox Churches here. (Not attended
> Antiochene Liturgy) But I have prayed for Hosni Mubarrak, and the
> rising/flooding of the Nile River a thousand times.
That's very strange. Practically every liturgy that I have been to in
Australia has prayed for Queen Elizabeth.
This is mainly ROCOR, but I have been to Greek and Coptic services
(in English) and didn't notice anything out of the ordinary such as
what you describe.
Congratulations on your recent ordination!
Andrew
Warecliff
of
>view. As one who has his feet in both camps, I would say that neither
>viewpoint is inherently unreasonable, given the working
>presuppositions.
>
Sorry for the spelling! My secretary does a much better job than I do! Given
the way the world is trending these days, I mean in terms of language, trade
and political philosophy, which viewpoint is more inherently likely to succeed;
which the more in tune with the "zeitgeist"? I suspect the answer is obvious,
though I generally agree with what you've said.
Jack Clifford
Christopher
ware...@aol.com says...
I have often felt that being an American is like joining a Church. You or
your anscestors come here and "assent" to our beliefs and ideals (The
Constitution, Equal Justice before the law etc...). As Americans our
identity is based upon a set of shared values and our self-identification
as one people. This is a radically different view than the tribalism of
Europe. No matter how hard I tried, I could never actually *become*
French or German, or Spanish because my ethnicity to not theirs. In their
view it never will be. However, they can come here and become as American
as any of us who were born here. Our American view of ethnicity is very
very similar to the Roman and Byzantine conception of
citizenship/identity. My how far Hellas has drifted from her roots.
As far as the French are concerned, I speak French with a moderate
Quebecois accent since I was around many Quebecois and Acadiens while
learning the language. I say patate instead of pomme de terre. I
sometimes say the flatter "moie" and "toie" instead of the Parisian "moi"
and "toi." Quebecois is actually 17-18th century Royal aristocratic
French rather than the middle-class French that became standard after the
revolution. However, even though I do not speak "Joual" or working
class, rural Quebecois, my experience in France was that my accent was
looked upon as quite improper. But then again, as much as I love them,
the French ARE the French!! :) A couple of times a Parisian would start
talking to me about les bastardes Canadien anglo-phones et Americains
thinking I might be Quebecois. Then again, the French ARE the French
n'est pas?? :) :)
Christopher
> In my experience, the Greek Establishment, clerical or otherwise, at least
Christopher
drgeo...@aol.com says...
> " The mission of the Church in America is to serve the needs of the
> Greek, period, end of discussion. "
>
>
This is rank phyletism.
Phyletism = heresy
Those who espouse it are heretics
A bishop who teaches heresy is to be deposed.
Am I missing anything??
Warecliff
>French or German, or Spanish because my ethnicity to not theirs. In their
>view it never will be. However, they can come here and become as American
>as any of us who were born here. Our American view of ethnicity is very
>very similar to the Roman and Byzantine conception of
>citizenship/identity. My how far Hellas has drifted from her roots.
>
I couldn't agree more, especially re the similarity between our concept of
citizenship and those of Rome or Byzantium. Your comments about becoming
Spanish or whatever are likewise well taken. I've seen this a number of times
in Greece, though I must say that it hasn't been true in my family. My very
Yankee wife, when we are in the village, is called by the village women by my
mother's maiden name (they often call me by my mother's maiden name in the
village) with "ina" appended to it, meaning "the wife of..." as opposed to
"Americana" or "Americaneetha". On the other hand, they know she's president of
Philoptochos and she tells them what's going to happen on the 18 month behind
the times American soaps they watch so she became part of the gang real quick!
>Quebecois is actually 17-18th century Royal aristocratic
>French rather than the middle-class French that became standard after the
>revolution. However, even though I do not speak "Joual" or working
>class, rural Quebecois, my experience in France was that my accent was
>looked upon as quite improper.
Of course, you're right on this one! But how long ago were you accused of
having an improper accent. My experience has been quite the opposite. Quebecois
is really quite formal compared to modern French, especially that spoken in
Paris which has become quite Anglo (Moi, je veux "skier" pendant le "weekend"!)
> A couple of times a Parisian would start
>talking to me about les bastardes Canadien anglo-phones et Americains
>thinking I might be Quebecois.
Fun, isn't it? I usually get asked about the latest vote for independence.
>Then again, the French ARE the French
>n'est pas?? :) :)
Tu as raison, mon vieux!
Joyeux Noel!
Jack Clifford
Warecliff
>
Thanks in greatest measure to 400+ years of the Turkokratia and and to a lesser
extent to the efforts of the founders of the modern Greek state to harken back
to images and forms of Periclean Athens to the exclusion of the Byzantine
era.This latter has been, to a great extent, rectified of late. Young Greeks,
by the way, look upon themselves as Europeans, something my uncles' generation
doesn't do.
Jack Clifford
DrGeor107b
Phyletism = heresy
Those who espouse it are heretics
A bishop who teaches heresy is to be deposed.
Am I missing anything??<<
Yes, something I have learned over the past few years. Only another bishop can
bring a bishop canonically before a spiritual court on any charge. A lay
person,
or group of people, whether they be labeled "para ecclessial" or not, cannot do
so.
So long as the local synod of Bishops do not vote to intervene, nothing can
happen.
In reality, even if they do, the higher authority is extremely reluctant to
take out one of their brothers, no matter how grievous the offense. This is
especially true if it was their office who appointed that Bishop in the first
place. The reality is, there aren't that many Orthodox bishops out there, and
they are pretty much feel free to set up despotic systems of abuse in the name
of Christ. The results are many national churches in stagnation led by
spiritual leaders who are merely yesmen to the authority figures.
Theologically and in theory, we have the best system of church governence in
existence. It is supposed to be a syndiakonia between the clergy and the laity
with everyone in the Church under authority. The reality though is something
less than this ideal. The Roman Catholic Church gives it's hierarchs much more
input into policies than we do. What can we do about it?
Pray.
In Christ,
Dr. George
DrGeor107b
An "American Orthodox Church" is utterly anathema to the Church in
Greece, and to the Greek Establishment generally.
Just as an autocephalous Greek Orthodox Church in Greece was seen to the
patriachate about 100 years or so ago. Every new birth has it's labor pains and
every child must cut it's umbilical cord sometime.
In Christ,
Dr. George
Atsaves
heard it used in the form of "once a citizen of Greece, always a citizen of
Greece."
Such an attitude stymies "Hellenism" does it not?
Regards,
Louis Geo. Atsaves
<< Subject: Re: Greek Orthodox Church of Australia and Converts
From: Alexander Arnakis alexande...@mail.verizon.net
Date: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 7:44 PM
Message-id: <ohha4tcovl47f0909...@4ax.com>
Alexander Arnakis
>Does not "once a Greek, always a Greek" transcend nationality? I have never
>heard it used in the form of "once a citizen of Greece, always a citizen of
>Greece."
>
To Greeks (from the Old Country) the term "Greek" is used in two
senses: the broader sense of ethnicity, and the narrower sense of
citizenship.
Ethnic "Greekness" connotes even the slightest Greek background, and
can be generations removed from the Old Country. In fact, ethnic
Greeks can have ancestors without the slightest connection with Greece
proper, such as those from Turkey, the former Soviet Union, Africa,
etc.
Regarding citizenship (Greek citizens are a subset of ethnic Greeks),
the second part of your statement above is indeed true: generally,
"once a citizen of Greece, always a citizen of Greece." Under Greek
law, the only way one can lose Greek citizenship is by open
renunciation, confirmed by a specific vote by the Greek Parliament.
Such a vote is practically impossible to obtain.
Therefore, merely renouncing Greek citizenship as, for example, part
of the proceedings to become a naturalized U.S. citizen, is
ineffective under Greek law. If a Greek, naturalized as a U.S.
citizen, returns to Greece, he is still subject to all Greek laws
(such as the military draft) that apply to Greek citizens.
The U.S. State Department recognizes that in such cases, "dual
nationality" exists, and that its ability to assist such persons is
limited. And further, under the line of cases beginning with Afroyim
v. Rusk, it is extremely difficult to unintentionally expatriate
oneself from U.S. citizenship (by voting, serving in a foreign army,
etc.).
On the other hand, "dual nationality" can be used to advantage. With
Greece now a part of the EU, Greek citizenship means European
citizenship, and a Greek passport gives the right to live and work in
any country of the EU. Also, under the Greek Constitution, Greece will
not extradite its citizens to face accusations in any foreign state.
(They must be tried in Greece.)
Rusnak2938
of the proceedings to become a naturalized U.S. citizen, is ineffective under
Greek law. If a Greek, naturalized as a U.S. citizen, returns to Greece, he is
still subject to all Greek laws (such as the military draft) that apply to
Greek citizens.
So they are dual citizens as you explain later. Most interesting - I didn't
know that about Greek law. (I read somewhere that Britain considers naturalized
Americans dual citizens too - so Sir Anthony Hopkins can keep his knighthood.)
So it is easy, then, legally speaking, for longtime immigrants to take their
fortunes, go home and retire, as I understand some do, returning not only from
the US but from Australia. That's great.
If it's hard to lose US citizenship, then was Andreas Papandreou a dual citizen
when he was Greek PM? It doesn't seem likely. Being a head of state, or, as in
AP's case, head of the government of another country seems incompatible with US
citizenship and would be problematic for the other country too (wouldn't such
make the country a US dependency in a way?). I think Papandreou renounced his
acquired US citizenship when he ran for office in Greece. I remember the news
describing him as a *former* US citizen.
Related question: do American Jewish immigrants to Israel, who AFAIK usually
get automatic Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return, lose their US
citizenship at that point or if they are drafted/volunteer in the Israeli armed
forces? Do they lose it ever? (The late Golda Myerson/Meir was once a
naturalized US citizen.)
<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus'</a>
Alexander Arnakis
wrote:
>
>So they are dual citizens as you explain later. Most interesting - I didn't
>know that about Greek law. (I read somewhere that Britain considers naturalized
>Americans dual citizens too - so Sir Anthony Hopkins can keep his knighthood.)
My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that the U.K. (as well as
Germany, etc.) forces one to choose one citizenship or the other.
Therefore, Britons and Germans with U.S. "green cards" are very
reluctant to apply for U.S. citizenship. As far as knighthood, I don't
think that necessarily follows citizenship. (Obviously, knighthoods
aren't recognized under U.S. law.)
Three of the countries with large numbers of "dual nationals" are
Israel, Italy, and Greece.
>So it is easy, then, legally speaking, for longtime immigrants to take their
>fortunes, go home and retire, as I understand some do, returning not only from
>the US but from Australia. That's great.
>
Just about anybody can retire in Greece -- if he's not a Greek
citizen, he just has to keep renewing his residency permit, which is a
mere formality. Non-Greek citizens are precluded from owning real
estate in certain islands and border areas, but that restriction can
be circumvented by using a Greek "owner of record."
The real problem for non-Greeks (who are not EU citizens) is being
able to legally work in Greece. They have to prove that their skills
are not available in-country.
>If it's hard to lose US citizenship, then was Andreas Papandreou a dual citizen
>when he was Greek PM? It doesn't seem likely. Being a head of state, or, as in
>AP's case, head of the government of another country seems incompatible with US
>citizenship and would be problematic for the other country too (wouldn't such
>make the country a US dependency in a way?). I think Papandreou renounced his
>acquired US citizenship when he ran for office in Greece. I remember the news
>describing him as a *former* US citizen.
>
That's right. Before he entered Greek politics, Andreas went to the
U.S. Embassy and renounced his U.S. citizenship. The U.S. recognizes
this. If the shoe had been on the other foot (if he had wanted for
some reason to renounce his Greek citizenship), it could not have been
so easily done. Ironically, when Andreas was in exile in Sweden, the
then Greek junta revoked his Greek citizenship, something it was later
held they did not have the authority to do.
Even if Andreas had not formally renounced his U.S. citizenship,
serving as head of a foreign government is still on the list of
"expatriating acts" from which intent to give up U.S. citizenship can
be inferred. Although, it is not unknown for a U.S. citizen to serve
as a minister in a foreign government, with prior U.S. government
permission. (The defense minister of post-Soviet Estonia was a retired
U.S. Army colonel.)
>Related question: do American Jewish immigrants to Israel, who AFAIK usually
>get automatic Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return, lose their US
>citizenship at that point or if they are drafted/volunteer in the Israeli armed
>forces? Do they lose it ever? (The late Golda Myerson/Meir was once a
>naturalized US citizen.)
>
The short answer is no. Afroyim v. Rusk, the leading Supreme Court
case in this area, involved a naturalized American citizen who
immigrated to Israel, became an Israeli citizen under the Law of
Return, and then voted in an Israeli election. The holding in the case
was that these actions were not enough to divest Afroyim of his U.S.
citizenship, since they did not show a specific intent to give it up.
(Since then, the rules have been liberalized even more.)
Service in a foreign army is specifically *not* expatriating
(particularly if the person is drafted), unless service as an officer
is involved. (Of course, bearing arms against the United States is
another story.)
Golda Meir entered Israeli politics long before the Afroyim case. But,
like Andreas Papandreou, she would have renounced U.S. citizenship
anyway.
Atsaves
and other Orthodox Churches in America was not established through the "mother"
church giving birth to the "child" in America.
It came when the "child" very unnaturally attached itself to a "mother church"
with an umbilical cord after self starting or a self birth.
The sooner we wake up to the fact that we owe only to the "mother" churches a
historical background only, the better off we in the new world will be in the
future.
Regards,
Louis Geo. Atsaves
<< Subject: Re: Greek Orthodox Church of Australia and Converts
From: drgeo...@aol.com (DrGeor107b)
Date: Sun, Dec 24, 2000 11:44 AM
Message-id: <20001224124423...@ng-cv1.aol.com>
Alexander Arnakis
Dear Dr. George and Louis:
There are two distinct issues, that you both are tending to confuse:
One is the issue of autocephaly for the *Greeks* in America, and the
other is the issue of the amalgamation of *all* the Orthodox in
America.
When the Church of Greece established its autocephaly from the
Patriarchate, there was no question that it would still remain a Greek
church. In fact, it sought and obtained autocephaly to become *more*
of a Greek church, seeing that the Patriarchate was under Ottoman
domination.
It may well be that the GOA one day will become independent for the
same reasons.
The creation of an "American" Orthodoxy is entirely a separate issue.
*That* is what the Greek clergy (other than the Patriarchate) is
primarily opposed to.
Considering the numbers (the GOA is by far the largest Orthodox
jurisdiction in America), why should the GOA water down its identity
by joining with the others? Isn't SCOBA enough of a gesture towards
unity?
DrGeor107b
Dear Dr. George and Louis:
There are two distinct issues, that you both are tending to confuse:
You are absolutely right in this Alex.
America is perhaps posing the first in what promisies to be a very confusing
problem in the Orthodox ecclesiology of the new globalized world. A similar
problem can develop in countries like Australia, Japan, Korea, and anywhere
else where there is a presence of multiple old world jurisdictions having
missions and eventually churches in the " new terriotories". America is perhaps
in the most advanced stage, and what happens here will perhaps set the stage
for how Orthodoxy will deal with this issue from now on. It's an interesting
issue, and I would love to brain storm with both of you about it. I was present
at the all night dialog which led to the formation of the OCMC. I do have a
bit of experience with the various issues here. Let's see if we can pretend to
solve this issue for our hierarchs and see what we can up with here, just for
the fun of it.
In Christ,
Dr. George
GS
DrGeor107b wrote:
>
> Dear Dr. George and Louis:
>
> There are two distinct issues, that you both are tending to confuse:
I would love to brain storm with both of you about it. I was present
> at the all night dialog which led to the formation of the OCMC.
Then you will know that the OCMC recognizes the GOA but not the OCA
although it derives a lot of money from the latter. So said Father
RIcci, as he was collecting for missions in Albania at an OCA church.
> In Christ,
>
> Dr. George
>
Atsaves
participants in the OCMC program.
Perhaps Fr. Ricci was misinformed?
Regards,
Louis Geo. Atsaves
<< Subject: Re: Greek Orthodox Church of Australia and Converts
From: GS oh...@my-deja.com
Date: Tue, Dec 26, 2000 1:50 PM
Message-id: <3A48F683...@my-deja.com>
DrGeor107b
>>Then you will know that the OCMC recognizes the GOA but not the OCA
although it derives a lot of money from the latter. So said Father RIcci, as
he was collecting for missions in Albania at an OCA church. <<
Though this is a totally different matter, I will state that all SCOBA
jurisdictions are welcome on the OCMC. The OCA has always been in the OCMC.
During my tenure I served with Fr. Joe Fester and Fr. Chris Reeves of the OCMC.
I am aware of a certain faction based out of the Albanian OCA parish in South
Boston which has tried to disrupt the work of Archbishop Anastasios of the
Autocephalous Albanian
Church which has been working very, very, hard to reopen seminaries,
monastaries and train indigenous Albanian
priests. Indeed the recently ordained Bishop who had trained as a missions
student at Holy Cross was one of my patients while he was attending school.
I know two priests were sponsered by the OCA South Boston parish to stir up
old ethnic Greek-Albanian animosities dating back from before the turn of the
century, and to denounce the officially recognized Orthodox Church as a false
effort. After sending millions of dollars and scores of American missionaries
to Albania, why would the OCMC want to support an effort which seeks to
undermine it's missions efforts to promote a ethnocentric effort tied to long
dead politics of 100 years ago?
My apologies if my words offend, but I have not been much of a diplomat of
late. The OCMC and indeed the most of the SCOBA jurisdictions, do not engage in
the same sort of rhetoric as comes out of the South Boston parish. I however am
now just a layman and feel perfectly free to expose injustice where ever I see
it, even if it is in in my own church.
Most importantly however to this conversation is the example of disunity in
Orthodoxy which you have illustrated. Unity will not come from above. It must
start as a grass roots movement from within the jurisdictions. Until the
churches in America can start cooperating with one and other, on a local
parish level, and seeing themselves as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church, we will never have a united Orthodox Church in America . Until we can
shed the old world animosities, we are doomed to be new world splinter
churches. As we look down our noses at the protestants who are divided by
doctrines, we will be judged for
allowing ourselves to be splintered by ethnic pride.
In Christ,
Dr. George
Alexander Arnakis
>America is perhaps posing the first in what promisies to be a very confusing
>problem in the Orthodox ecclesiology of the new globalized world.
To me, it's a given that the Patriarch should evacuate the prison that
is the Phanar. Any number of options would be better for him than
remaining in Turkey. A "caretaker bishop" could be left at the Phanar.
(The precedents for this are that the Patriarch of Antioch lives in
Damascus, and the Patriarch of Alexandria lives in Cairo.)
He could set up his HQ in New York or Chicago, which are in his
largest constituency. He could go to Switzerland, which is a neutral
but central location. He could go to some place in "New Greece," such
as Thessaloniki. He could become a monastic in Mt. Athos.
If he refuses to do any of this, the GOA would be more than justified
in becoming independent of him. Enough of this "tail wagging the dog."
Alexander Arnakis
>
>I am aware of a certain faction based out of the Albanian OCA parish in South
>Boston which has tried to disrupt the work of Archbishop Anastasios of the
>Autocephalous Albanian
>Church which has been working very, very, hard to reopen seminaries,
>monastaries and train indigenous Albanian priests.
Beware of mission funds destined for Albania going into a "black
hole."
My late father-in-law raised a relatively large sum of money about 5
years ago for the rebuilding of the Orthodox church in his native
village in southern Albania. The money was sent to a "trusted" local
priest there for that purpose, but when the relatives went there some
time later to check on the progress of the rebuilding, nothing had
been done, and the money was gone. The priest finally explained that
the villagers' daily needs for food, clothing, etc., took priority
over the church rebuilding project. Who can blame him?
I don't think that conditions have changed that much in Albania over
the past 5 years.
The lesson to be learned from this story is that funds *have* to be
accompanied by supervision. Don't send funds blindly to Albania (or
even in charge of someone too closely tied to the country). Your goals
will not be accomplished.
DrGeor107b
is the Phanar. Any number of options would be better for him than
remaining in Turkey. A "caretaker bishop" could be left at the Phanar.
(The precedents for this are that the Patriarch of Antioch lives in
Damascus, and the Patriarch of Alexandria lives in Cairo.)<<
Here is what the EP has said on this issue recently:
>>Published in The Hellenic Journal of San Francisco, December 7, 2000.
Patriarchate to remain in Istanbul, Vartholomeos says
ISTANBUL, December 7, 2000 (HJ) -- Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Vartholomeos
on Monday said in no uncertain terms that the Patriarchate would remain here,
during his address to the Church's clergy and faithful conference.
"We trust in Divine Providence and not in secular leaders," he said, adding,
"Divine Providence wants this historical throne (of the Patriarch) to this side
of the world and not anywhere else."
Thus he responded to questions regarding the future of the Patriarchate in a
city inhabited largely by Muslims.
Vartholomeos said that this is not the first time in history that the
Patriarchate existed in a this city, with a very small minority of Orthodox
Christians, reminding the participants of the conference of St. Gregory of
Nance times, (the fourth century AD) when the Patriarchate was but a small
community around the St. Athanasia Temple. <<
>If he refuses to do any of this, the GOA would be more than justified
>in becoming independent of him. Enough of this "tail wagging the dog."
Actually, this is not true.True autocephaly cannot be achieved or even granted
unilaterally. If nothing else the creation of the OCA in 1970 from the
Metropolia has shown this. The title has been a thorn of contention between all
the jurisdictions of SCOBA since it's inception and has not led to any
promotion of unity in the American
jurisidictions. Instead each of the jurisdictions has been content to stay
within their ethnic enclaves pointing their fingers at one and other and
saying;
" Thank you Lord for not making us _________ like those in the __________
jurisdiction."
( You can fill in the blanks)
The Patriarch by virtue of his options could have been the one to rise above
the fray and become the framework for the formation of a panonoical American
Orthodox Church which combined all the jurisdictions, but when the possibility
for this process started to present itself, in the flickering flame called
called Ligoneers, it was quickly stamped out by the phanar with extreme
prejudice. The Church was thrown into turmoil in it's aftermath ever since.
Now even the possibility of a new charter in the GOA, is a subject that must be
spoken about behind closed doors lest we offend the EP.
The matter of an independent GOA is a who different story however.
Ecclesially it poses it own set of problems. Let's explore these in a later
post.
In Christ,
Dr. George
DrGeor107b
Correction here: Dr. George, (Me, myself and I, the unholy trinity), never
said such a thing. Indeed the OCA has been in the OCMC since it's inception
with people like Fr. Joe Fester, Fr, Chris Revees, and Betty Yankowski ( sp? )
( if there is no -opoulos at the end of a name I can't be held responsible for
it's spelling ;-) ) . The above refernece was made by the other party. I
disagree vehemently.
Doc :-)
DrGeor107b
Alex,
This was the whole purpose for the creation of the OCMC. We were
formed during the final years of the communist rule in Eastern Europe. The
needs by far exceeded the resources. If one just through money at these needs,
most of it would have disapeered into a "black hole". What was needed was what
was created, a world wide network of onsite missionaries who could be trusted
to work with the local churches to ensure the funds got to their designated
sources. Albania is now our most successful missions effort. Fr. Martin Ritsi,
a classmate of mine at HC/HC and current director of the OCMC, was a
missionary in Africa and Albania with Archbishop Anastasios for 14-16 years
before returning to America to assume his new post. He raised is kids in the
villages of Africa and Albania. I urge you to go the to OCMC website and see
what has been done in Albania. The OCMC is the most efficient source of
Orthodox missions funding . It is far more effective than a parish priest
raising funds and sending it over to some priest over there that he may have
briefly met or come to hear of.
In Christ,
Dr. George
nskov
"DrGeor107b" <drgeo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001227085352...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
.True autocephaly cannot be achieved or even granted
> unilaterally.
The fact is that this statement is a "loaded" statement. Certainly, there
is considerable difference of opinion on this. Obviously, the EP , the
Antiochian archdiocese etc. have their opinion based primarily on their
suspected canonicity in the US. Thus, the autocephaly of the US cannot be
recognized because to do so would mean that their continued presence in the
US cannot be considered canonical. Is there any question about this?
Moreover, it is also obvious that the EP is and has been attempting to
expand his influence outside of the small area in Turkey to which he now is
canonically limited . He has been causing trouble around the world in his
effort to become the Eastern Pope.
If nothing else the creation of the OCA in 1970 from the
> Metropolia has shown this. The title has been a thorn of contention
between all
> the jurisdictions of SCOBA since it's inception and has not led to any
> promotion of unity in the American
> jurisidictions.
Again, your statement seems to avoid the obvious. You make it sound like
the autocephaly of the OCA is holding back unity of the American
jurisdictions. Come on now. You know and I know and everyone else knows.
The unity of the various US jurisdictions was scuttled by and only by the EP
after Ligonier. And you know and I know why the EP did this. Your own GOA
was less than courageous in permitting him to stop the Ligonier movement.
Instead each of the jurisdictions has been content to stay
> within their ethnic enclaves pointing their fingers at one and other and
> saying;
When you say...."each of the jurisdictions has been content" , I assume
naturally that you exclude the OCA since the OCA has been foremost among the
American jurisdictions in stepping away from their "ethnic " ties . I have
yet to see any Greek Orthodox church change it's name to Orthodox church but
almost all of the OCA parishes removed the "Russian" from it's name. :Dr.
George. Put the blame where the blame belongs. You know and I know and
everyone else knows who is holding back unity and why there will be no unity
until the Americans decide that they want unity . Not the EP, not the
Patriarch of Antioch, not the various others ruled by foreigners who have
absolutely no interest in a unified Orthodox Church of America.
Atsaves
negotiations between the GOA Hierarchs and the EP will straighten this all out!
In a top secret fashion, of course! When the delegates of the GOA at the last
Clergy-Laity Congress demanded a copy, they were assured that everything was
alright and that it was a wonderful charter, so wonderful that it must remain a
complete secret!
From the version of this "top secret" charter I have seen, the laity have been
reduced to "pray, pay and obey, and then stay out of our way" for clericalism
running wild. This after repeated assurances that the laity role will not be
reduced. The clergy-laity congress role in the life of the Church has shrunk
dramatically. Instead of the authority of the hierarchy coming from the laos
or the royal priesthood of all baptised Christians, the authority of the
hierarchy comes only from the hierarchy. The Church, after all, is not a
"democracy" even though it is structured so that authority flows from the laos
upward, and not from the "dictators" downwards. Thomas Jefferson's theory has
never been rebuffed by anyone, that is, no one person can govern without the
consent of the governed, under any system of governance.
The EP according to news releases was miffed because a version of the new top
secret charter was published in a newspaper, and he feels "pressured" because
of it. The last thing the EP or the GOA Hierarchs are considering is actually
distributing this document to all the parishes for input by the serfs, slaves
and indentured servants of the Church, which is their attitude towards the laos
of the Church. The input I suspect would be rather angry.
Remember parishes, you will soon have absolutely no voice when your diocese
comes knocking and demanding monies from you.
Didn't Christ Himself stress "top secret" as the most overriding concern of His
Church?
Cut the umbilical cord and put a leash the power hungry hierarchs in this
country, and you will eventually be able to move towards unifying all Orthodox
jurisdictions.
Everything since Ligonier has been hierach vs. hierach in a struggle for
increased personal authority, from bishop to EP in the GOA. It's time we laos
forced these hierachs to end their personal battle royal and force them to
behave like they are supposed to. What they forget is, it is not their Church,
it is the Church of Christ.
Regards,
Louis Geo. Atsaves
<< Subject: Re: Greek Orthodox Church of Australia and Converts
From: "nskov" pap...@attglobal.net
Date: Wed, Dec 27, 2000 9:29 AM
Message-id: <3a4a0...@news1.prserv.net>
DrGeor107b
Most of my statements usually are!
Doc :-)
DrGeor107b
>>Again, your statement seems to avoid the obvious. You make it sound like
the autocephaly of the OCA is holding back unity of the American
jurisdictions. Come on now.<<
I apologize for this, it was my intention merely to state that it had not
promoted the framework for a multi jurisdictional
" Orthodox Church of America" as had been hoped for by some. The OCA is no
more guilty of jurisdictionalism than anyone else in America, and the EP has
definately been the one who has put the brakes on in this regard. Unfortunately
he links the
maintaining and expanding of his new world
territories to the survival of the Phanar in Turkey. There in lies the solution
to the problem. If we can work out a way to promote unity while at the same
time strengthening not weakening the old world patriarchates, the stumbling
blocks to true unity may begin to crumble.
> I assume
>naturally that you exclude the OCA since the OCA has been foremost among the
>American jurisdictions in stepping away from their "ethnic " ties
Yes the OCA has been a leader in this regard as has the Antiochian Archdiocese.
Despite this there is much interjouristicional animosity among all of us. The
GOA, Antiochians, and the OCA all take pot shots at one and other. I could go
into multiple examples, but why bother. The point is, if we are going to move
beyond this and speak with one voice in America, we have got to start among
ourselves. Being either Super Ortthodox or Super jourisdictional only promotes
disunity and hurts the Churches mission here.
In Christ,
Dr. George
DrGeor107b
forced these hierachs to end their personal battle royal and force them to
behave like they are supposed to. What they forget is, it is not their Church,
it is the Church of Christ.
Regards,
Louis Geo. Atsaves<<
Oh come on now Louis, tell us how you really feel.! :-)
It is very sad I must say, the hierarchy really didn't learn anything from the
Spyridon debacle/crisis. Instead of leading through the informed consent of
the people they are the spiritual sheperds of, they seem more frightened than
ever to proclaim the truth of where they seek to lead us. It seems that the
only mistake they think they have made was to have allowed too much
information to be leaked to the public. It is truly sad that the spiritual
leader of so many billions and billions of Orthodox peoples throughout the
universe can be so "Clueless in Constantinople." Can't anyone wake this all
Holy dude up to reality?
In Christ,
Dr. George
Z and ALTR
>> and the "xenoi." (Arnakis)
>
>No, I don't see that in his talk, only that he wants to discourage
>conversions for the sake of ceremony as opposed to choice and belief. (Galina)
I agree with Galina - the emphasis is on converting because you believe
Orthodoxy is the way you want to worship, not just to please your new mate.
It's a lifetime commitment, not a fad, and Fr. Leonidas is using the cautious
approach. If Australian parishes are like some of those in the USA that have
an ethnic Greek-speaking majority, as opposed to an Aussie-speaking majority,
then it would be even more difficult for a convert to feel comfortable unless
he/she was truly dedicated. We have two parishes in my city, one has an almost
totally Greek-born, Greek-speaking immigrant congregation of a lower
socio-economic status; the other congregation is a mixture of Greeks,
Greek-Americans, and converts who come from many socio-economic levels, and our
language of choice is English. The service is about half Greek and half
English. Some converts find it easier to accept their new spiritual life in
this environment where they find others who have had the same experience. Some
are happy in their choice, a few feel out of place but still come and find over
time that the initial strangeness has worn off, and others leave Orthodoxy.
It's an adjustment, and Fr. Leonidas wisely says it takes a lot of time.
GS
Atsaves wrote:
>
> This is a news flash to me. My understanding is that the OCA has active
> participants in the OCMC program.
>
> Perhaps Fr. Ricci was misinformed?
I should have provided more detail. His talk at Saint Nicholas was on
mostly Albanian missions. I can't remember even how it came up, perhaps
when he was talking about some of the programs of the Albanian Church to
help the Kosovo refugees and I mentioned or someone else mentioned that
the Albanian Orthodox dioceses here , spearheaded by Father Liolin had
instituted a refugee helping program even before the war, but that we
could all do more. That the OCA was trying to help, not just the
Albanian parishes. I am not sure it was in response to that or to some
other statement about the OCA Albanian Archdiocese but he stated that
the only Albanian Church in America recognized is under Ilja Katre. And
that this was true of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as well.
I didn't say anything but was thinking that what little church remained
in Albania or the impetus to make it Albanian and not a Greek satalite
church would probably not exist without the work of some of the American
Albanians, Bishop Fan Noli in particular.
There are a couple or three places in the world where Orthodoxy is
fragile - not just becuase it is surrounded by Islam or some other
philosophy, but becuase the people begin to wonder after so long if it
is really their own Church. I wonder how much responsibility we each
take for engendering belief or the obverse, i.e. discouraging it.
Whenever it is expected that you must pray in another language besides
your own, i.e. that there is no choice in the matter, it is a way of
saying that whatever that language is that was not important enough to
speak the Word of God, that other language is suggested as inferior and
its people with it. We enoble the Word, we enoble the diversity of
God's creation when we make it natural and honorable to worship in many
languages. One of these fragile places was Albania, but moving in a
healthy direction. Another Palestine. Here in North America I think
we have actually come to a realization that preserving older heritages
is good while having Church in our modern languages, i.e. doing both or
several languages, ex. Slavonic, Bulgarian, English or Koine, Modern
Greek, English or Slavonic Russian French, i.e. recognizing what people
speak while honoring the grandparents and new emigrants.
In praise of the Light that has Enlightened the Gentiles and the Glory
of Israel,
Galina
Steve Hayes
> This was the whole purpose for the creation of the OCMC. We were
>formed during the final years of the communist rule in Eastern Europe. The
>needs by far exceeded the resources. If one just through money at these needs,
>most of it would have disapeered into a "black hole". What was needed was what
>was created, a world wide network of onsite missionaries who could be trusted
>to work with the local churches to ensure the funds got to their designated
>sources. Albania is now our most successful missions effort. Fr. Martin Ritsi,
>a classmate of mine at HC/HC and current director of the OCMC, was a
>missionary in Africa and Albania with Archbishop Anastasios for 14-16 years
>before returning to America to assume his new post. He raised is kids in the
>villages of Africa and Albania. I urge you to go the to OCMC website and see
>what has been done in Albania. The OCMC is the most efficient source of
>Orthodox missions funding . It is far more effective than a parish priest
>raising funds and sending it over to some priest over there that he may have
>briefly met or come to hear of.
Amen to that.
I was teaching at the seminary in Albania a few months ago. In 9 years it has
trained 115 priests and deacons, and lots of other church workers.
In my own diocese, in South Africa, the Orthodox Church has been here for 90
years, and has no seminary, and nearly all the priests are expatriates.
The resurrection of the Church in Albania has been a miracle.
The unworthy servant of God,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Web: http://www.suite101.com/myhome.cfm/methodius
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/stanmer/182/
GS
DrGeor107b wrote:
>
> Correction here: Dr. George, (Me, myself and I, the unholy trinity), never
> said such a thing. Indeed the OCA has been in the OCMC since it's inception
> with people like Fr. Joe Fester, Fr, Chris Revees, and Betty Yankowski ( sp? )
> ( if there is no -opoulos at the end of a name I can't be held responsible for
> it's spelling ;-) ) . The above refernece was made by the other party. I
> disagree vehemently.
>
> Doc :-)
There are definitely people in the OCA working very hard for the OCMC, I
never said otherwise. AS its webpage states, the OCMC started as a wing
of the Greek Orthodox of America and then came under the wing of SCOBA.
OCA and GOA meet at SCOBA although do not officially recognize one
another.
It would be nice if the OCMC were to be expanded and we were all to fund
it. It would be nice if we had a huge Orthodox Christian Charities. It
would be nice if we had more schools, colleges, and paid clergy. Right
now there are only a limited number of missions in some orthodox
majority countries. And as far as the IOCC is concerned, about which
see below an examination of the OCMC, when I talked to the nice
Presbyterian (or was it Methodist) young woman hired to answer their
phone calls in Baltimore, she really couldn't answer about which
countries were served by the IOCC as "Im not Orthodox. " Are there no
Orthodox to hire in the Baltimore area to man the phones? Need some
phone numbers?
Here is a list of countries with programs run by the OCMC - to see what
programs, click on them at
http://www.ocmc.org/countries/index2.htm
List of Countries
Albania
Cameroon
Chad Costa
Rica
Ethiopia
Ghana
Guatemala
Haiti
Hong Kong
India
Indonesia
Israel
Kenya
Madagascar Mexico
Nigeria
Puerto Rico
Philippines
Romania
Russia
South Korea
Slovakia
Tanzania
Ukraine
Uganda
United States
Let' take a look at an area that has a large number of majority Orthodox
countries emerging from communism and having incredibly low standards of
living.
European Countries
Albania
Romania
Russia
Slovakia
Ukraine
Some of the best programs are in Albania, and most of us on this
newsgroup are aware of these wonderful programs:
http://www.ocmc.org/countries/albania/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Romania, OCMC webpages for what programs are there are a bit harder
to find. The click on the country only provides a map. Here is the
Goodwin's page in Cluj:
http://www.christiana-cluj.org/
Evidently, this is the philanthropic wing of the Romanian Orthodox
Church, supported by OCMC among others. I know a couple of local
churches who collect for this organization here in Washington that are
in the Romanian Archdiocese and some Greek friends were donating from
Saint Katherine's locally..
Here is an interesting article about a school dropout (streetkids)
program, fronted by the portrait of a beautiful Romani child:
http://www.christiana-cluj.org/broch1.htm
Here is another OCMC couple in Cluj is the Hudson family:
http://www.ocmc.org/longterm/hudson/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hard to know what's going on in Russia with the OCMC. Clicking on the
country name provides one only with the official page of the Moscow
Patriarchate:
http://www.russian-orthodox-church.org.ru/en.htm
Hmmm, maybe if I troll issues of the magazine. Let's see vol.16, no. 2
to get a sense of what missions are out there. Hmmm, Church of Alaska,
not in Europe, but of course worthy
(fragile)http://www.ocmc.org/magazine/2000ii/2000ii-03.htm
Here is an Orthodox day camp in Ciosa, Romania (well, I guess having the
villagers provide this and that and visiting a monastery is a mission of
sorts - to the Americans):
http://www.ocmc.org/magazine/2000ii/2000ii-06.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whatever was happening in Russia, I couldn't find it~~ if it exists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clicking on Ukraine gets only a map and a church webpage which is
outdated so you have to go to a new webpage the OCMC is unaware of:
Nicely provided in English, Russian and Ukrainian.
Went through a buncha pages, no missions mentioned. Don't know which of
the Ukrainian Orthodox churches that this one is.
Oh well.
~~~~~~~~~~~
I was curious about what missions the OCMC might have in Slovakia. Here
we are:
http://www.ocmc.org/longterm/leussis/
Deacon Demetrios is teaching iconography to seminary students at the
Orthodox Theological Faculty in Presov and painting icons in a church.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here's how to become a missionary and a history of the program:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ok, on another page finally found the missions in RUssia and Slovakia.
These are supported through the canister program, . money is given to
these programs:
RUSSIA: St. Seraphim Brotherhood, Valaam Monastery Food
Slovakia: St. Nicholas Orphanage
Albania: Orthodox Health Clinics, Kosovar Refugee Relief
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OTHER ORTHODOX CHARITIES:
http://www.iocc.org/wheredoes_frameset.html
> With your help, IOCC is currently making a
difference in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia • Republika
Srpska(Bosnia-Herzegovina) • Republic of Georgia • Russian Federation •
Albania • Jerusalem/West Bank • Greece.
> IOCC in the Former Yugoslavia IOCC began providing life-sustaining aid in areas of the former Yugoslavia in the winter of 1992 at the invitation of His Holiness Patriarch PAVLE and the Serbian Orthodox Church. IOCC's humanitarian response to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and the former UN Protected Areas in Croatia has exceeded $40 million.
> Humanitarian aid and development projects in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) are administered through Field Offices in Belgrade, Serbia, and Podgorica, Montenegro. In Bosnia-Herzegovina (Republika Srpska) an IOCC Field Office is maintained in Banja Luka. The IOCC Field Office in Podgorica currently makes distributions of aid in Kosovo (Methojia) through distribution centers administered by the Serbian Orthodox Church.
So much for former Yugoslavia. If it ain't Serbia, it ain't funded.
Wait, there's more. :
> Albania: Responding to the crisis which evolved in early 1997, IOCC joined forces with Action by Churches Together (ACT) to bring humanitarian relief to those hardest hit by the collapse of the economic structure of Albania: the elderly, single parent families, the disabled, families with three or more dependent children, orphanages and women's groups not already assisted by
the United Nations and other international relief agencies.
>
In partnership with Diaconia Agapes (DA), the relief and development
office of the Orthodox Autocephaleous Church of Albania, IOCC
distributed 15,000 family food parcels and 2 tons of medicines and
medical supplies provided by ACT to especially vulnerable families,
individuals and medical institutions over
a three month period with a total estimated value of US$270,000.
>
IOCC will continue to assist DA with the procurement and distribution
of approximately US$36,000 of medicines and medical supplies during the
winter months.
>
Greece: IOCC has had a presence in Athens, Greece since 1992, when an
office was established to provide assistance in procurement of
humanitarian supplies and to offer support for the Yugoslav office.
>
In October 1996 the IOCC/Athens office issued an appeal to public and
private schools asking for donations of school furniture and school
supplies to be sent to recently reconstructed schools in Doboj,
Bosnia-Herzegovina. The responds
included a Greek paper manufacturer who donated 2 tons of paper for
notebooks and a notebook manufacturing company which turned it into
23,000 notebooks.
>
IOCC/Athens also initiated a project for the "Single Mother's
Association", an organization which helps single mothers with temporary
shelter, counseling
and job-training.Office equipment and furniture were received to help
the organization provide better aid.
>
During the Albania crisis, the IOCC/Athens office provided support to
the IOCC/DA joint program by contacting suppliers of humanitarian aid,
soliciting bids, arranging for transport of aid, etc.
>
The IOCC/Athens office will continue to provide support to other IOCC
field offices, but will also more actively pursue worthwhile projects in
Greece and engage in local fund-raising activities.
Yo, let's check out RUssia:
more than $30 million in aid projects have been undertaken
throughout the Russian Federation. All of IOCC's programs in Russia are
closely coordinated with the Russian Orthodox Church which has over 100
dioceses and some 8,000 parishes.
http://www.iocc.org/ioccinrussia.html
~~~~~~~~~
Hmm, thought I'd take a look at the IOCC Middle East programs:
http://www.iocc.org/ioccinmiddleeast.html
>
Based on the conference results and following a planning retreat by the
IOCC Board in May 1997, IOCC began operations in Jerusalem. Partial
funding was made available by the Orthodox Christian Mission Center
(OCMC) to strengthen two Palestinian Orthodox organizations: the Arab
Orthodox Union Club and the Beit-Jala Orthodox Kindergarten by providing
Orthodox education
and counselling for children as well as educational and recreational
equipment.
>
The Arab Orthodox Union Club's Sunday School serves approximately 100
children while its summer camp provided education and recreation for
approximately 150 children. The Beit-Jala Orthodox Kindergarten serves
children from disadvantaged families. Both organizations used their
grant funds to purchase books, games, educational materials and
recreational equipment.
Children and parents benefit from the opportunity to gather and learn
about their Orthodox heritage through discussion groups, play groups
and counselling.
>
In addition, IOCC's Consultant in Jerusalem, Mrs. Eleanor Kort has been
speaking with other local Orthodox organizations which could benefit
from IOCC's presence in the Middle East.
That sounds great!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
However, all these programs are thin while we continue jurisdictional
battles. There are a lot of fragile countries whose grandparents and
great-grandparents were Orthodox emerging from atheist communism. The
Orthodox that remain or are emerging are stressed with low standards of
living, high unemployment (60% in some countries), westernization
without the means to lead a western lifestyle (newly perceived needs),
secularized western attitudes following as a seemingly logical continuum
with atheism, nationalism (just another form of greed), and
environmental stresses.
We could all do more. And we should not let jurisdictionalism get in the
middle of things. I found it amazing that representative of many
chruches sit on the board of the IOCC, for example, while no aid of any
kind goes to their own churches. ex. Bulgaria, Carpathorus, Belofus,
Moldova, to mention just a few .
Have some relief background (If I did, I'd apply for the job myself):
Employment opportunities
Program Director for the United States
International Orthodox Christian Charities, Inc.
(IOCC) seeks qualified personnel for Program
Director for the United States. Requirements:
3-5 years humanitarian relief and development
programs; solid administrative and financial
skills, experience with U.S. government and
other donor contracts; excellent communications and interpersonal
skills; ability to work in challenging environments.
Submit cover letter, salary requirements and resume to:
International Orthodox Christian Charities (IOCC)
110 West Road, Suite 360
Baltimore, Maryland 21204 U.S.A.
Phone — (410) 243-9820
Fax — (410) 243-9824
Email: rel...@iocc.org
Baltimore is a nice place to live.
Galina
GS
Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>
> I was teaching at the seminary in Albania a few months ago. In 9 years it has
> trained 115 priests and deacons, and lots of other church workers.
>
Yes, it is a miracle! May the miracle continue. Please do tell us
about your mission experiences. The newsgroup could use something
uplifting.
Bless you for going to teach in Albania,
Galina
DrGeor107b
>Amen to that.
>
>I was teaching at the seminary in Albania a few months ago. In 9 years it has
>trained 115 priests and deacons, and lots of other church workers.
>
>In my own diocese, in South Africa, the Orthodox Church has been here for 90
>years, and has no seminary, and nearly all the priests are expatriates.
>
>The resurrection of the Church in Albania has been a miracle.
>
>
>
>
>
>The unworthy servant of God,
>Stephen Methodius Hayes
>Web: http://www.suite101.com/myhome.cfm/methodius
>Orthodox mission pages: http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/stanmer/182/
>
Hello Stephen!
It's been a long time! Nice to here from you! I didn't know you
were in Albania.
God bless you for all your efforts in the missions field.
In Christ,
Dr. George
DrGeor107b
> >Then you will know that the OCMC recognizes the GOA but not the OCA
> >although it derives a lot of money from the latter. So said Father
> >RIcci, as he was collecting for missions in Albania at an OCA church.
> >
> >> In Christ,
> >>
> >> Dr. George
> >>
Galina,
Please do not repost this kind of statement this way again.. To a
casual lurker it looks like I made the above statement because my title is
under it. I did not make this statement. Even though I am no longer involved
with the missions field directly, I would appreciate it if such statements or
indeed any statements I don't actually make don't get attributed to me. I
create enough problems for myself on my own, without having to assume
responisibility for other peoples statements as well.
Dr. George :-)
DrGeor107b
>Despite this there is much interjouristicional animosity among all of us.
Family members often take pot shots at one another. Look at it thisway -- 30
years ago it was iffy that the average member of one knew thatthe other even
existed.
Harry Coin
Mr. Coin,
Long time no "see" ! How nice of you to join the discussion. It
brings back memories of old times, doesn't it!
Doc :-)
GS
DrGeor107b wrote:
>
I wrote: > > >Then you will know that the OCMC recognizes the GOA but
not the OCA
> > >although it derives a lot of money from the latter. So said Father
> > >RIcci, as he was collecting for missions in Albania at an OCA church.
in answer to a message by Dr. George which ended:
> > >
> > >> In Christ,
> > >>
> > >> Dr. George
> > >>
>
> Galina,
>
> Please do not repost this kind of statement this way again..
I didn't see that when I posted it, Dr. George. SOrry.
To a
> casual lurker it looks like I made the above statement because my title is
> under it. I did not make this statement. Even though I am no longer involved
> with the missions field directly, I would appreciate it if such statements or
> indeed any statements I don't actually make don't get attributed to me. I
> create enough problems for myself on my own, without having to assume
> responisibility for other peoples statements as well.
OK. I usually look to see whether the various people in a thread are
clearly visible, but also assume people can follow the references to
previous posts in the thread in the headers. I am not sure if this is
possible on Aol but definitely is on other news services.
>
> Dr. George :-)
Galina
Steve Hayes
>
>
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
>>
>> I was teaching at the seminary in Albania a few months ago. In 9 years it has
>> trained 115 priests and deacons, and lots of other church workers.
>>
>
>Yes, it is a miracle! May the miracle continue. Please do tell us
>about your mission experiences. The newsgroup could use something
>uplifting.
I did post it a few months ago, soon after I got back. Here it is again.
Teaching & travels in Greece and Albania - May 2000
by Stephen Hayes
I was invited to teach missiology in the Orthodox Seminary in
Albania for the Pascha term, 2000, and spent nearly 2 months in
Greece and Albania. My wife Val had leave from work, and was with
me for the first three weeks. Here is a kind of travelogue, for
anyone who is interested.
There were four parts -
Holy Week and Pascha in Athens with our daughter Bridget
A holiday tour of western Greece
Teaching in the seminary in Albania
A pilgrimage to the Holy Mountain (Mount Athos)
I've also put an illustrated account of this on a web page. If
you'd prefer to see it with pictures, point your web browser to:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/albrep1.htm
And, of course, if it doesn't interest you at all, just delete
it.
HOLY WEEK & PASCHA
We left for Greece on Monday in Holy Week (April 24), and spent
Holy Week and Pascha in Athens, going to services mainly at Holy
Trinity Church in central Athens and at the Monastery of St John
the Forerunner in Kareas. We stayed with our daughter Bridget,
who is studying theology at Athens University.
After the Good Friday service we visited various churches, mainly
in the Plaka district of Athens, to venerate the Epitaphios
(burial shroud) and climbed halfway up the Acropolis hill, from
where we could hear the church bells tolling from various parts
of the city.
TOURING IN WESTERN GREECE
We hired a car for four days, and on Easter Monday, which was
also May Day, we headed north to Thessaly. We found ourselves on
the freeway by mistake, and turned off it at Thiva (Thebes), to
try to get to the road we had originally planned to travel on. We
saw a sign pointing to the Monastery of the Holy Cross, and
Bridget said she had heard there was a South African nun there,
so we turned off to have a look. We were treated with true
monastic hospitality, and given lunch, but it turned out that the
South African had gone with some other sisters to found a new
monastery in Mexico.
We continued our journey to Kastraki, and spent the evening and
the following morning looking at the monasteries at Meteora. The
setting was quite spectacular - the monasteries perched on
fantastic pillars or rock rising at the edge of the plain. But
the desert they were not - they were overlooked by a constant
stream of tour buses passing by outside.
We crossed the Pindos mountains to Epiros, and as we neared the
top spring became winter again, and there was still snow on some
of the mountain tops. We called at the town of Metsovo, which was
reminiscent of Veliko Turnovo in Bulgaria, with the houses on a
steep hillside and a winding river valley below. We spent the
night in Monodendri, one of the Zagori villages, where the houses
were all built of beige stone - walls, roofs and everything.
The following morning we looked at the Vikos gorge, and on the
way passed natural rock formations that looked just like the
houses in the villages. They looked like the ruins of some fabled
lost city. It had a wild beauty similar to the Blyde River Canyon
in South Africa. We also visited a monastery at another village,
Ano Pedion, which had been restarted by some of the sisters from
Thebes at the request of the Bishop of Ioannina.
We went south, stopping for lunch in Ioannina, and a little fur-
ther on at a waxworks museum showing the history of the Epiros
region, a fascinating and sometimes gory recreation of scenes
from the past. One of the exhibits showed St Kosmas the Aetolian,
who was an itinerant evangelist and teacher in the Balkans in the
18th century. His ministry was very similar to that of John Wes-
ley in Britain in the same period. Most educated Western
Christians have heard of John Wesley, though very few have heard
of St Kosmas, and most Orthodox Christians know of St Kosmas,
though few have heard of Wesley. It's a sign of how little East-
ern and Western Christians know of each other or of each other's
history and traditions.
We spent the night at a small seaside village called Mytikas, and
the following day crossed on the ferry to the Peleponnese. We
took another winding mountain road to Kalavryta, and visited the
Mega Spelion monastery on the road back to the coast, and
returned to Athens.
Fr Luke Veronis, the dean of the seminary in Albania was in
Athens with his family for a conference on "Orthodoxy 2000" where
he read a paper on Orthodox mission, and we listened to some of
the other papers as well.
ALBANIA
Val and I went to Albania on Sunday 7 May 2000. We travelled on
the plane from Athens with Fr Luke Veronis, his wife Faith, and
their children Paul and Theodora.
I began teaching at the seminary on Monday 8 May. The seminary is
at Shen Vlash, about 40 km from Tirana near the port of Durres on
the Adriatic Sea. There had been a church and monastery there
before, but they were demolished by the Hoxha (pronounced Hodja)
regime about 30 years ago. In 1967 Albania was declared to be an
atheist state, and all temples, mosques and other religious
buildings were closed. Some were converted to other uses, and
many were demolished altogether.
In 1991 democracy came to Albania, and religious freedom was
restored. No Orthodox bishops had survived the Hoxha regime, and
most of the few surviving priests had been in prison. Bishop
Anastasios Yannoulatos was appointed Archbishop to revive the
Orthodox Church of Albania, and he decided to build the seminary
at Shen Vlash to symbolise that revival. The seminary now has
about 60 students doing a three-year course, with about 20
students in each year. About two-thirds of the students are male,
and one-third female. I taught the same course, on Orthodox mis-
sion history and methods, to all three years
For the first couple of classes, I asked the students to tell me
about themselves and their churches. Many of the stories were
very similar. There was a church, or two or three or four
churches in their village. The communists demolished them in
1967. One of them had been rebuilt, or is being rebuilt. Some
went further back, and said that people in the village knew of
sites of churches that had been demolished much earlier - by the
Turks in the 15th or 16th centuries. Students from Durres told me
of the tomb of St Asti, the first Albanian bishop, and the second
bishop of Durres (the first had been Jewish). St Asti had been
martyred in AD 98. For a South African, the Church in Albania
seems mind-bogglingly old, and in its 2000-year history the peri-
ods of persecution have been far longer than the entire existence
of Christianity in South Africa.
Some of the students had little experience of the persecution at
first hand. Many of them were only 10-12 years old when the
communist regime fell in 1991.
On Tuesday 8 May I spoke to students at the University of Tirana,
where Fr Luke is the student chaplain. There were about 20
students, and I spoke about South Africa, and our struggle for
democracy, and some of the similarities and differences I saw
between South Africa and Albania. One major difference, of
course, was that in Albania Christians were persecuted in the
name of Atheism, whereas in South Africa Christians were
persecuted in the name of "Christian civilisation". Trying to
explain that to students in Albania made me aware just how crazy
the South African setup was. Persecuting Christians in the name
of atheism may be evil and wicked and cruel, but there is at
least some logic in it.
An even more significant difference was that in South Africa we
have the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Much has been said
and written in South Africa about the shortcomings of the TRC --
that it let too many people off too lightly, that it has failed
to deal with the question of restitution, or, from the other side
of the political fence, that it was a witch hunt, or an example
of the winners rewriting history. In the Balkans, and especially
in Albania, such criticisms seem trivial and petty. If the
Balkans had an institution half, or even a tenth as effective as
the TRC, the situation would be enormously better than it is now.
Student conference
Over the weekend of 19-21 May there was a student conference at
Durres, attended by students from the University of Tirana, with
a few from the theological seminary. I could not help comparing
it with some Christian student conferences I have attended in
South Africa.
The most striking thing to me was the similarities. Students are
much the same the world over, and have similar concerns and
responses to them. Sitting round a camp fire on a beach, singing
songs, the scene could have been a Christian student conference
in almost any country in the last 40 years or so. The only thing
different was the songs. The Albanian songs sound rather sad, in
a minor key. One evening the students put on plays and skits, and
lampooned politicians and their slogans and mannerisms. Many of
the students were concerned about what would happen when they
graduate. Will they be able to find jobs, what kind of career do
they have to look forward to?
On Saturday morning we went in a bus to a village near the town
of Kavaje. In the centre of the town was a half-rebuilt mosque,
with a crumbling abstract communist monument in the centre of the
square, overgrown with weeds. We had to stop to ask the way, and
the way led through roads where haphazard concrete block
extensions to houses encroached on the street, with great piles
of rubbish at the corners. It went on across a stinking ditch,
all over plastic bottles and abandoned cars, that 10 years ago
may have been a pleasant stream.
Once out of town, however, things improved. We got out of the bus
and climbed a hill, up a path through olive trees. At the top of
the hill was St Paraskevi's Church, one of the few that had
survived the atheist period intact. It has frescoes showing the
trial and crucifixion of Christ, and was built of stone. A Welsh
teacher at the seminary, Medwyn Roberts, said it could have been
in Wales. It was a kind of universal rural church. We had Matins
- some 60 students, and a few local people, and then an American
student who has been teaching English at the seminary, himself a
recent graduate and about to go to seminary in the USA, Hector
Firoglanis, spoke to the students in a setting rather like the
sermon on the mount, sitting on a bank under the olive trees,
with donkeys braying and grazing all around. He spoke on hope --
where could one find hope in the world?
An old Muslim woman and several children, boys of about 9 or 10,
who may have been her grandchildren, came to listen too. She
joined in the discussion. She said she had been born on the other
side of the plateau, and came to this side when she married, but
life had been hard and miserable on both sides, and in all peri-
ods, and one could only hope in God.
Another speaker at the conference was Fr Deiniol, of Blaenau
Ffestiniog, Wales. He spoke on monasticism as radical rebellion
against society's values, and how this led monks to care for
those whom society rejected, the weak and the powerless.
The students discussed a couple of questions arising out of the
papers that had been presented. One that provoked the most
discussion was the question whether, as young Christian
graduates, they should stay in Albania to develop the country, or
whether they should seek to emigrate to find a better life for
themselves, and how they would justify their choice on Christian
grounds. The brain drain is a serious problem in Albania, and
many people see no future in the country, and their only desire
is to emigrate. Some responded that there was no choice in the
matter - they would not have an opportunity to use their skills
in Albania, and so emigration was the only way forward. Most,
however, said that it was not possible to prescribe such a course
of action. People must decide with the guidance of their
spiritual father, and not for purely selfish motives.
On the Sunday morning we went to the Divine Liturgy at St
George's Church in Durres. It was in a beautiful setting, high on
a hill overlooking the town, with the same contradictory scene
below - half the buildings half built, and the other half falling
down, though some are both at once. The church was full, and the
singing was led by a choir of young people, some from the
seminary, and others from the parish. Most of the congregation
seemed young, and there were very few old people.
I had a question for the students. People say that in their town
or village, there are so many Muslims and so many Orthodox -- but
they never say how many atheists there are. That is somewhat
surprising in a country that for over 30 years described itself
as the first atheist country in the world. The cemetery at Shen
Vlash, near the seminary, has Orthodox and Muslim sections, but
there is no atheist section. Did no atheists die during the 23
years of the atheist regime? Did the atheists not only promise,
but achieve immortality? No, they did die, but when they were
buried, Orthodox Atheists and Muslim Atheists continued to be
buried separately.
When the country was ruled by the Turks, many people became Mus-
lims, but when the Turks left, they did not suddenly announce
that they were Orthodox again. They continued to call themselves
Muslims. But the atheists did not continue to call themselves
atheists. Just as in South Africa, where it is now very hard to
find anyone admitting that they supported apartheid, so much so
that one wonders how it managed to last so long when no one
supported it, so in Albania, it is hard to find anyone who
supported the atheist regime, and so the same question must
arise: how could the atheist regime have lasted so long if there
were no atheists?
Father Deiniol later spoke to some of the students at the
university, and told them a bit about the Church in Wales. There,
he said, the young people were afraid to go to church, and no
one, young or old, was interested in talking about the Christian
faith. Religion was the last taboo, and no one talks about it.
Churches are closing all over Wales, and yet there is no atheist
government forcibly closing them. Perhaps it is just that people
do not appreciate what they are in no danger of losing, and end
up losing it just the same. The young people in Albania -- or at
least the ones we met -- are eager to talk about the Christian
faith, and they said that is what the talk about most among
themselves. Who will be Miss Albania 2000 is not the most popular
topic of conversation.
So it seems that in the 9 years since the end of the atheist
regime, there is a great deal of life in the Church in Albania.
Two hundred churches and 5 monasteries have been reconstructed
and 75 new churches have been built; 114 graduates of the
Resurrection of Christ Seminary have been ordained as priests and
deacons to serve the Church. In South Africa, in contrast, in
over 100 years of Orthodox presence, there is no seminary, no
monastery, and nearly all the clergy are expatriates. Some South
Africans have been called to the monastic life, but they have
gone to join monasteries overseas.
The following weekend the seminary students went on an expedition
to Korcha (Kor‡‰). We travelled through Durres, Kavaje and
Elbasan. It's less than 200 km, but the trip took 7 hours. From
Elbasan the road wound through the mountains alongside a river,
and was lined with maple trees, and trees with white sweet-
smelling flowers that people called "acacia", but don't look like
any of the acacias we know in South Africa. We crossed a high
mountain pass, and descended to Lake Ohrid.
Lake Ohrid is an important site of mission history, because on
the other side of the lake was the headquarters of St Clement of
Ohrid, one of the earliest missionaries in the area after SS
Cyril and Methodius. The other side of the lake is now FYROM
(Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), and in the past its
territory has been claimed (and sometimes fought over) by Greece,
Bulgaria, Serbia, Turkey and Albania. St Clement and his
companions were sent as missionaries to Ohrid by King Boris of
Bulgaria in the 9th century, and established institutions of
learning and translated books into the Slavic languages. He is
said to have been the first Bulgarian-speaking bishop. That in
part, is the basis of the Bulgarian claim to the region. But it
later became part of a Serbian empire, and it is inhabited by
many Albanian-speaking people today.
On Saturday 27 May we went to the village of Voskopoje, up in the
mountains, and that was a bit like the Zagoria villages in Greece
- stone houses and cobbled streets. It is hard to believe that in
the 17th century it was a trade, cultural and educational centre
with 50000 inhabitants and 24 churches. It had an academy, which
was almost like a university, and the first printing press in the
Balkans. The Turks were jealous of its prosperity, and burnt it
down in 1768. It never fully recovered, and now has only about
1000 inhabitants, who are mostly peasant farmers. Many of the
churches in Voskopoje had beautiful frescoes, but most of the
ones outside the buildings were damaged by graffiti from the
communist era. Some of those that had survived the communist era
had been damaged more recently by people from a Muslim youth
camp.
General impressions of Albania
There are three physical things that almost immediately strike
foreign visitors to Albania.
The first impression is one of decay, of a crumbling infra-
structure. Most factories are closed, and the factories and many
public buildings have been plundered to build private houses, and
sometimes shops and restaurants - the latter often illegally
built in public parks and squares. There are many new buildings,
but a lot of them are half finished, and look old and crumbling,
even when they have been built within the last 8 years. There is
rubbish everywhere, on the streets, in courtyards, in rivers and
streams. Only in Korcha did the rubbish collection system seemed
to work. Municipal rubbish collection services seem a very
bourgeois preoccupation, but, as one song put it, "you don't miss
your water till your well runs dry".
The second impression is of the hemispherical concrete bunkers
that litter the countryside. In South Africa we had a war
psychosis in the P.W. Botha/Magnus Malan era, but it didn't have
quite such an effect on the physical appearance of the landscape
(unless one counts the military roads that there built).
The third impression that foreign visitors receive is the dolls
and stuffed toys placed on many of the half-finished buildings.
There are teddy bears, stuffed rabbits, pandas, and I also saw a
Mickey Mouse and a Pink Panther. A visiting Albanian-American
student remarked that it struck him as horribly sinister, like
something out of a Stephen King novel. These things are called
"dordolec" (pronounced "dordolets") and are apparently to ward
off the evil eye. There have been quite a number of
anthropological studies of the evil eye, but none of those I have
seen mention this custom, and I was curious to know whether it,
like religion, had been suppressed by the Hoxha regime.
But for me the lasting impression is the life and vitality in the
church, and the rapid and vigorous growth that has taken place in
the last nine years.
THE HOLY MOUNTAIN
One of the teachers at the seminary was Fr Ephrem, a monk from
the Simonos Petra monastery on the Holy Mountain. He arranged
with his brother at the monastery, Fr Theologos, for me to spend
a few days there before returning to South Africa.
I was there for the Leavetaking of Pascha, and Ascension Day (8
June). The vigil for the feast of the Ascension lasted over five
hours, and at various points in the service the chandeliers were
set swinging. One of the monks told me that the movement made the
candles burn more brightly, and it symbolised the dance of the
angels.
Fr Ephrem had said that monasticism is the lungs of the Church,
an image that helped me a great deal in understanding the role of
monasticism in mission, which I was trying to teach at the
seminary. The world is in the power of the evil one (I Jn 5:19)
and its atmosphere is polluted, not just physically, but
spiritually. Those in monasteries seek to breathe the pure air of
heaven, and it is this that enables the Church to continue in its
mission. When I said this to Fr Ephrem, he warned me not to have
a romantic view of monasteries. It was too easy for a monk to
lose nipsis (watchfulness), and said that more people go to hell
from monasteries than anywhere else. Fr Theologos also warned
against triumphalism. Nevertheless, it seems to me that Orthodoxy
will not flourish in southern Africa until there are monasteries
here.
The visit to the Holy Mountain was a fitting end to my time away.
For Orthodox Christians living in countries where there are no
monasteries, even a short time spent in a monastery is
refreshing. But, as William Golding says in one of his novels, it
is a bit like the taste of potatoes - it cannot be described, it
must be experienced.
Warecliff
your diocese
>comes knocking and demanding monies from you.
>
Oh come on, Lou! When that happens, the parishes can simply tell the
Archdiocese and or the Metropolitans of whatever dead see they represent to go
away. I suppose they could take our priests away, or try, but some, even many,
of the lower clergy wouldn't go. Eventually guys like thee and me would become
involved and as the unlamented Spyridon and his cronies discovered, the
Archdiocese has a distinctly sorry track record in Court. Maybe the EP or the
American hierarchs think it would be different for them. If so, they'd be
wrong. In any event, neither the Patriarchate, nor the Archdiocese nor the
various dioceses can afford the fight, financially, politically or spiritually.
How far do you think the Bishop of Istanbul (or any of the others, for that
matter) would get in the Superior Court in Androscoggin County, Maine, for
example?
I wish I could say that the EP, or the Archbishop or even a majority of the GOA
Synod really understands what they will be up against in a parish by parish
legal tong war, but I doubt they do. In the end they will lose, but the Church
will survive, Orthodox and American.
Jack Clifford
Warecliff
>time strengthening not weakening the old world patriarchates, the stumbling
>blocks to true unity may begin to crumble.
George, the only real problem among the Patriarchates is Istanbul. The Bishop
of Istanbul has been the purveyor of unadulterated evil in this country ever
since he was enthroned. Why, my good friend, would we want to do anything other
than hasten his removal. Strengthening him is the LAST thing we want to do. As
long as Bartolomeus dreams of an Eastern Papacy, or maybe of himself as the
Pope of Rome, successor to JP II (remember when those stories were coming out
of Rome some years back?), there will be no unity here save under his heel and
no autocephally for us save if we take it.
Jack Clifford
DrGeor107b
>George, the only real problem among the Patriarchates is Istanbul.
Every church has it's problems Jack. The EP just has a knack of putting his
foot in it more than the rest of them. His outlook on the world, is colored
through the glasses of his own perspective. Over there, he has no real flock to
deal with. There are no pastural issues he has, other than how to keep the
Turks from lobbing grenades over the walls of the Phanar.
When an issue comes up for them, the EP goes to the next in the chain of
command, and kicks him a good one in the can. He in turn goes to the next in
line and does the same, and so it goes down the line, until one gets to the
candle lighter at the Phanar, who goes out into the alley and kicks a stray dog
passing by.
The only response to any issue that they know is discipline/abuse. It is a
classic pattern for people who are themselves victims of abuse.
Greeks have a tendency to be driven by the saying:
" It's not how it is that is the problem,
it's how it looks."
In the case of the EP, this is ten fold.
Look at all the issues that have come up in the last 10 years. All have
to do with the prestige of the Patriarchate, how not to make the EP look bad,
etc, etc.
Has there been one shred of evidence of any remote interest in the spiritual
needs of the people here? Instead of spiritual leadership, we are fed a steady
diet of how
the EP is the spiritual head of billions and billions of Orthodox in the
Universe. What has the EP done for those peoples?
In America, he sent us Attilla the Archbishop to put us in our place for
daring to dream of a united Orthodox Church in our country and then wouldn't
remove him until the people were about to tar and feather the guy .
In Greece, he sided with the athiestic socialist government against the
leadership of the Church there, in an internal dispute.
In Estonia, were he supposedly intervened for the national interests of the
peoples, at a recent national clergy laity, he has his representatives show up
with a new national Church charter that the Phanar had drawn up unilaterally
without an consultation from the Estonian church, expecting them to adopt it.
When the Estonian Church refused to do so, inorder to save face for the EP, (
so it wouldn't LOOK bad), a committee was drawn up to
examine both charters and come up with a compromise.
Over here, don't get me going on what he is doing for our charter proposals.
So is it any wonder that billions and billions of Orthodox throughout the
universe are very very disappointed in the EP?
10 years ago everyone saw the EP as a benevolent leader. Is there anyone now
who really, in their heart of hearts, feels the same way? Is there anything
sadder for a Greek Orthodox believer to do than to even utter such a sentence?
Have a happy St. Basil's day,
Dr. George
Alexander Arnakis
> Over there, he has no real flock to
>deal with. There are no pastural issues he has,
Look, I know that the Greeks have a reputation for being shepherds and
appreciators of sheep, but this is ridiculous. Of course there are no
pastures or sheep in the Phanar -- it's way too small for that, and
it's in an urban area.
>
>In America, he sent us Attilla the Archbishop to put us in our place for
>daring to dream of a united Orthodox Church in our country and then wouldn't
>remove him until the people were about to tar and feather the guy .
>
Seriously, do you think that the present incumbent Archbishop
Demetrios is any less opposed to the idea of a united American
Orthodox Church? He's just being nicer about it than was Spyridon...
>In Greece, he sided with the atheistic socialist government against the
>leadership of the Church there, in an internal dispute.
>
The Simitis government in Greece is certainly not atheistic, and is
socialist in name only. As a matter of fact, they represent the Greek
and international business establishment. Just ask the Greek
pensioners whose benefits they slashed in order to meet the austerity
goals for entry into the Eurozone.
On the national I.D. issue in Greece, the Patriarch took a "hands off"
approach, which was correct. Christodoulos and the Church of Greece
had no business getting mixed up in something that was purely secular,
and of no legitimate concern for the Church.
Atsaves
when parish councils elections come up, they refuse to certify them.
Puts parish budgets in a state of chaos and the administration of parishes on
thin ice until they get their money. Kind of like giving the guy with the gun
the money in the end.
Don't expect the majority of parishes to rise up angry over this. Remember
during the Spyridon crisis, once you got past the handful of angry vocal types,
the silent majority supported the vocal ones, but didn't want to muddy their
feet in a fight either.
The result was a decrease in contributions to parishes by many.
Regards,
Louis Geo. Atsaves
<< Subject: Re: Greek Orthodox Church of Australia and Converts
From: ware...@aol.com (Warecliff)
Date: Fri, Dec 29, 2000 8:20 PM
Message-id: <20001229212032...@ng-fe1.aol.com>
Alexander Arnakis
>
> Remember
>during the Spyridon crisis, once you got past the handful of angry vocal types,
>the silent majority supported the vocal ones, but didn't want to muddy their
>feet in a fight either.
>
Where does +Demetrios come out in all this?
I smell rebellion brewing when people like Dr. George and Harry Coin
come out of "retirement" and make their appearance on the Internet....
DrGeor107b
>>Where does +Demetrios come out in all this?<<
I smell rebellion brewing when people like Dr. George and Harry Coin
come out of "retirement" and make their appearance on the Internet...<<
The new Archbishop seems to be trying to keep the peace. He is quietly building
a consensus and trying to make the best of a bad hand which was dealt to him by
others.
I don't expect that he or any of the church leaders would support any move that
would "embarass" the EP. Yet despite Abp. Demetrios best efforts to finesse
"the perception gap" between reality in America
and the world from the Phanar's persepective, a voluminous expanse exists
between these two perspectives.
Take the issue of the charter for instance. From the EP's perspective, a
charter is something which the Phanar grants to it's
spiritual wards when and if it chooses.
The people's input into church governence? If we want their opinion, we'll give
them one!
It is not suprising that this outlook causes problems in a country which was
founded on the principles of no taxation without representation.
The EP doesn't understand that giving the clergy and laity a voice to share
their concerns doesn't mean that the spiritual leadership of the episcopacy is
automatically compromised. The sheep just want assurances that the sheperd
has their best interests at heart.
>Is there a Harry and George conspiriacy resuming on the net?<
No . In deference to the new Archbishop and to the church in America, the two
of us have kept silent to allow the normal institutions of the church to heal
themselves. This process is still just begining to occur. The seeds of
bitterness sown here by the policies of the Phanar under Abp. Spyridon in the
past, are still bearing fruit throughout the land.
For myself, I feel obligated to raise a voice of concern. I do not have the
answers and am not sure if even the proper questions are being asked. I dread
the thought of re-igniting a fire that had such a devastating consequence in
the past. I would rather die than relive the last 5 years in the church!
Yet we in America are a people, in need of consideration and pastoral concern
all on our own, irrespective of whatever the Patriarchal politics de jour may
be. We are not the" omogenia", we are believers in Christ, baptised into the
Church regardless of our nationality, race,or color.. Is it a wonder if we get
upset when the EP treats us as anything else?
In Christ,
Dr. George
DrGeor107b
>Seriously, do you think that the present incumbent Archbishop
>Demetrios is any less opposed to the idea of a united American
>Orthodox Church? He's just being nicer about it than was Spyridon...
>
I am sure that Abp. Demetrios is not in favor of any move which would embarass
or even cause problems for the EP. Indeed from the day he was elected he has
worked very hard to end all damage to the prestige of the Phanar and even the
Church as a whole. His policies appear to not look back to hold people
accountable for their actions and lies, but rather to look forward and build
on a future for the Church.
Despite this however, a stealth agenda from
abroad continues to unfold itself before our eyes. The concerned laity cannot
be lulled into a false sense of confidence while every administartive body in
the Archdiocese from the parish councils to the Archdiocesan Council, to the
Clergy Laity Congress itself
is turned into an advisory body only.
I may be paranoid, but something is rotten in a place a little south of Demark
below the Danube. All I ask is for our Spiritual leaeders to be forthright in
the directions of leadership where they are taking us. If they want us to
adopt the RC system of governence, then they should explain this to us and tell
us why this is something that is for the benefit of the Church as a whole.
In Christ,
Dr. George
Steve Hayes
>>>Again, your statement seems to avoid the obvious. You make it sound like
>the autocephaly of the OCA is holding back unity of the American
>jurisdictions. Come on now.<<
>
>I apologize for this, it was my intention merely to state that it had not
>promoted the framework for a multi jurisdictional
>
> " Orthodox Church of America" as had been hoped for by some. The OCA is no
>more guilty of jurisdictionalism than anyone else in America, and the EP has
>definately been the one who has put the brakes on in this regard. Unfortunately
>he links the
>maintaining and expanding of his new world
>territories to the survival of the Phanar in Turkey. There in lies the solution
>to the problem. If we can work out a way to promote unity while at the same
>time strengthening not weakening the old world patriarchates, the stumbling
>blocks to true unity may begin to crumble.
And surely the best way to do that is to promote a healthy Orthodoxy in Turkey
itself. While Turkey remains a secular state, surely it should be possible to
promote Turkish Orthodoxy. Or do we have to wait until Muslim fundamentalists
take over and make it impossible?
Alexander Arnakis
wrote:
>
>And surely the best way to do that is to promote a healthy Orthodoxy in Turkey
>itself. While Turkey remains a secular state, surely it should be possible to
>promote Turkish Orthodoxy. Or do we have to wait until Muslim fundamentalists
>take over and make it impossible?
>
Under the Ottoman system, being "Turkish" meant being Moslem. Members
of all other religions were placed in largely self-administering
"millets" -- for example. the "Rum Millet" for all the Orthodox
(regardless of what language they spoke).
With World War I, the downfall of the Ottoman system, and the
upheavals that followed, the Turkish nationalists managed to
exterminate or expell practically all their religious minorities.
(Note the Armenian genocide, and the expulsion of the Greeks under the
Lausanne Treaty exhange of populations.) Even the Jews, the
best-treated of all the religious minorities, have mostly emigrated to
Palestine. The Patriarchate, with its tiny following, remains in
Istanbul under severely restricted conditions.
My own grandfather, a Christian missionary in eastern Turkey, was
executed by the Kemalists in 1922 for his activities.
Under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the secular policy of the Turkish State
was imposed to keep the Moslem extremists under control, and to help
modernize the country. The secularization of Turkey in no way implies
a beneficence towards the Christians.
In Turkey, prosyletization is still a serious crime, and Turkish jails
are legendarily unpleasant places.
Note: There was once a "Turkish Orthodox Church" under one
"Papa-Efthim." He tried to prove to the Kemalists that his followers
were ethnic Turks (because of language, etc.). Neither the Turks nor
the Greeks would buy the obvious sham.
DrGeor107b
>>And surely the best way to do that is to promote a healthy Orthodoxy in
Turkey
itself. While Turkey remains a secular state, surely it should be possible to
promote Turkish Orthodoxy. Or do we have to wait until Muslim fundamentalists
take over and make it impossible?<<
Stephan Hayes
Steve,
This is a very Christian attitude and the correct one to be sure, but
how is this possible with under the current state of affairs. Remember you are
dealing with a government which is still denying the Aremenian and greek
Holocost at the turn of the century occured. I remember when the Patriarch
Demetrios came to America, there were Turkish agents following him around
hanging on his every utterance. If there were was evevn the perception of a
slight to Turkey mentioned by Americans at any of the gatherings the EP was
taken to task. Now I am not up on what goes on with Patriarch Bartholemew, but
it is not so long ago that the candle lighter was murdered in the sanctuary of
the Phanar and grenades were being lobbed over it's walls. In such an
atmosphere, what can be done to promote harmony between Turkey and Orthodoxy.
Is the proper course to deny the abuse so that it doesn't become worse or to
highlight it before the world? Should we, as Americans tolerate moves by the
Turkish government like putting pressure on Microsoft's Encarta Encyclopedia
not to mention the Armenian Holocost? If Germany were behaving this way about
their holocost, would we tolerate it? From my perspective, for there is a time
to all seasons. A time to be silent and a time to fight. Wisdom comes from
discerning the difference.
In Christ,
Dr. George
Atsaves
super top secret don't tell the laity a thing about it or they will get mad at
us proposed new Charter of the GOA.
Isn't that why it is supposed to be top secret? And OUR Metropolitans and
Bishops HERE in the GOA drafted it?
So to you parishes and laity lulled into a false sense of peace and security
these days, remember what the new top secret proposed Charter says you are to
do: "pray, pay (what we tell you to pay) and stay the heck out of our way!"
Or to reiterate a quote of Metropolitan Iakovos of Krinis, presiding Hierarch
of Chicago, during one of his Clergy-Laity Diocesan Conferences a few years
back: "The rules are for you lay people, we who are ordained need no rules!"
And HEY!: Isn't HE the chairman of the charter committee?
Regards,
Louis Geo. Atsaves
<< Subject: Re: Greek Orthodox Church of Australia and Converts
From: drgeo...@aol.com (DrGeor107b)
Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2001 11:56 PM
Message-id: <20010103005640...@ng-xc1.aol.com>
Atsaves
and keeping a lid on controversies that continue to brew in the GOA along with
our relationship with the EP.
But unfortunately, you can only keep the lid down on a boiling pot for only so
long before it overflows.
Archbishop Demetrios managed to overcome the first hurdle and bring a measure
of peace and quiet to the Church that desperately needed it. But can he
maintain the peace in the future?
All the old faces that mercilessly clawed at each other are still around. It
is really more up to them than up to the Archbishop, who is a new face not
involved in the squabbles of the past, to keep the peace and work for what is
best for the Church in America, and not what is best for themselves.
Regards,
Louis Geo. Atsaves
<< Subject: Re: Greek Orthodox Church of Australia and Converts
From: drgeo...@aol.com (DrGeor107b)
Date: Tue, Jan 2, 2001 11:37 PM
Message-id: <20010103003743...@ng-xc1.aol.com>
Alexander Arnakis
> In such an
>atmosphere, what can be done to promote harmony between Turkey and Orthodoxy.
>Is the proper course to deny the abuse so that it doesn't become worse or to
>highlight it before the world?
In the thaw in relations between Greece and Turkey following the
earthquakes of '99, some proposals were made to allow greater
religious freedom. Greece agreed to allow a mosque to be built in
Athens, and the Turks said something about reopening some ancient
churches.
But, when the time came to reopen the cave churches in Cappadocia to
Christian services, the Turks invited *Roman Catholic* clergy to
officiate. Likewise, the Turks are talking to the Catholics about the
status of the (empty) tomb of St. Nicholas at Myra, and the reputed
"house of the Virgin" outside Ephesus. Meanwhile, the Orthodox
seminary on the island of Halki remains closed, despite attempted
mediation by President Clinton.
So the goodwill of the Turks remains to be demonstrated. It seems they
are more interested in "fishing in muddled waters," and in promoting
tourism by Christians.
I say, deny them the opportunity to do this, and remove the
Patriarchate and all its institutions from under their control.
Christopher
alexande...@mail.verizon.net says...
>
> Note: There was once a "Turkish Orthodox Church" under one
> "Papa-Efthim." He tried to prove to the Kemalists that his followers
> were ethnic Turks (because of language, etc.). Neither the Turks nor
> the Greeks would buy the obvious sham.
>
This gives me pause. Now according to what I have heard, any amount of
Greek blood entitles one to be considered "Omogenia." Now forgetting the
actual absurdity and irrationality of the term "Omogenia" among a nation
of mixed ethnicities like the USA, I have a thought.
Since the Mongolian Turks raped their way across Asia Minor in the 11th,
12th and 13th centuries, violating Byzantine women at their pleasure,
most modern Turks actually are more Greek by blood than anything else.
Last time I checked the Turks in Turkey look VERY different from their
kindred Turkish tribes of central Asia like the Uzbeks or Kazaks.
Clearly they have LOTS of Greek blood flowing through their veins.
Now if one drop of Hellenic DNA makes one a member of the Omogenia,
doesn;t it follow that the people living in Ankara, Kayseri, Istanbul,
Trabzon, Isnik etc ... are Omogenia??? Doesn't this mean that the Turks
are part of the happy Hellenic family??
Try saying that loudly at the next parish social!!! (only if you have a
death wish of course!!)
Alexander Arnakis
<cla...@killspamchartertn.net> wrote:
>
>Now according to what I have heard, any amount of
>Greek blood entitles one to be considered "Omogenia." Now forgetting the
>actual absurdity and irrationality of the term "Omogenia" among a nation
>of mixed ethnicities like the USA, I have a thought.
>
>Since the Mongolian Turks raped their way across Asia Minor in the 11th,
>12th and 13th centuries, violating Byzantine women at their pleasure,
>most modern Turks actually are more Greek by blood than anything else.
>Last time I checked the Turks in Turkey look VERY different from their
>kindred Turkish tribes of central Asia like the Uzbeks or Kazaks.
>Clearly they have LOTS of Greek blood flowing through their veins.
>
>Now if one drop of Hellenic DNA makes one a member of the Omogenia,
>doesn;t it follow that the people living in Ankara, Kayseri, Istanbul,
>Trabzon, Isnik etc ... are Omogenia??? Doesn't this mean that the Turks
>are part of the happy Hellenic family??
>
thing, it's a culture thing.
The population of Asia Minor has always been of highly mixed blood.
Even in ancient times, the interior of Asia Minor was populated by
Hittites, Medes, Persians, etc., who were Hellenized after the
conquests of Alexander the Great.
The numbers of invading Turks were too few to account for much of the
gene pool of Turkey today. It's true that they interbred with the
natives, but a more significant factor was the wholesale conversion of
natives to Islam.
Conversion was a one-way door that made one into a Turk. Never mind
that some converts spoke Greek as a mother tongue for generations
afterward, or that, conversely, some Christians took to speaking
Turkish as a mother tongue. Religion was what made one either a Greek
or a Turk.
Drops of "Greek" blood (whatever that means) don't make one Greek.
It's the culture, nominal religion, and, above all, ethnic
self-identification.
BTW, "omogeneia" is not a dirty word. It's the way the Greeks of
Greece see their relationship with their cousins throughout the world.
They kind of expect all Greeks to stick together, to a greater or
lesser extent.
see...@citynet.com
Just as the dominate power of the empire of Alexander spread cultural
features, so did the Ottoman empire. Much of what one can find in Greece
today has an Ottoman origin; consider food, music, etc. as some of such
cultural features. A closer look would no doubt also reveal much in
common with what is known as Greek identity along the lines of
personality, child development, family structure and gender roles, etc.,
etc. are shared with the folk of asia minor and other Ottoman areas.
Christopher
alexande...@mail.verizon.net says...
> >
> I think you misunderstand the concept. "Omogeneia" is not a "blood"
> thing, it's a culture thing.
Actually that cultural definition of what it means to be an American is
something some Greeks appear to find difficult to comprehend. Greek-
americans are *Americans* first and foremost with the Hellenic identity a
fast fading memory. Look at your typical 3rd or 4th generation Greek.
Most of them are only part Greek. Why should a person who is a descendant
of Greeks, French, Irish and Germans value their Greek heritage above the
others?? They shouldn't!! But to listen to those person caught in a
ghetto mentality, this should be done. Some of the persons in the GOA
with this mentality are horrified by the 90% and up level of
intermarriage with persons of non-hellenic background. "We can't have
Xenoi polluting the gene pool" seems to be a concern. Americans with
Greek ancestry are RAPIDLY being assimilated into the American muulti-
ethnic melting pot. GOd has not granted them any special dispensation to
remain aloof from the rest of our culture or peoples. Soon a distinct
Greek etnos will vanish on the North American continent. If the GOA
clings to an ethnic identity, it will vanish as well. When I ponder the
fate of the GOA, I wonder if the OCA and the Antiochians are the future
of Orthodoxy long-term.
> BTW, "omogeneia" is not a dirty word. It's the way the Greeks of
> Greece see their relationship with their cousins throughout the world.
> They kind of expect all Greeks to stick together, to a greater or
> lesser extent.
Most of their "cousins" in this county are also kin to the Irish, French,
Spanish, Swiss, Germans, Danes and Hungarians as well. Why should they
pay special attention to the Greek aspect of their ancestry?? Whatever
the meaning of Omogenia in Hellas, here in the USA it is a deeply
offensive term and deeply offensive idea that has no place in Orthodoxy.
++
There is still a Turkish Orthodox Church, but tiny. I once posted their
website (but can't find it again right now). One of the things they had
on the website in support of a Turkish Orthodox Church was that so many
of the profige from Turkey had to be trained in Greek language classes -
from scratch. Even today, you and I know (and maybe some of the same
people) people who grew up with Turkish and learned their Greek later
and sometimes imperfectly.
Steve Hayes
>
>>>And surely the best way to do that is to promote a healthy Orthodoxy in
>Turkey
>itself. While Turkey remains a secular state, surely it should be possible to
>promote Turkish Orthodoxy. Or do we have to wait until Muslim fundamentalists
>take over and make it impossible?<<
>
> Stephan Hayes
>
>Steve,
>
> This is a very Christian attitude and the correct one to be sure, but
>how is this possible with under the current state of affairs. Remember you are
>dealing with a government which is still denying the Aremenian and greek
>Holocost at the turn of the century occured. I remember when the Patriarch
>Demetrios came to America, there were Turkish agents following him around
>hanging on his every utterance. If there were was evevn the perception of a
>slight to Turkey mentioned by Americans at any of the gatherings the EP was
>taken to task. Now I am not up on what goes on with Patriarch Bartholemew, but
>it is not so long ago that the candle lighter was murdered in the sanctuary of
>the Phanar and grenades were being lobbed over it's walls. In such an
>atmosphere, what can be done to promote harmony between Turkey and Orthodoxy.
>Is the proper course to deny the abuse so that it doesn't become worse or to
>highlight it before the world?
Perhaps a start was made when Greece was one of the first to send help to
Turkey at the time of the 1999 earthquake, and the Turks responded in kind
when there was an earthquake in Athens not long afterwards. Many people in
Greece were saying "Does it take an earthquake to teach us to be Christian?"
and some said that God had sent the earthquake for that very purpose.
Here in South Africa our recent experience of the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission has taught us (well, at least those of us who were willinmg to
learn) that one cannot deny the evils of the past, but one must face them. Yet
one should also recognise that we need to build a future that is different
from the past.
> Should we, as Americans tolerate moves by the
>Turkish government like putting pressure on Microsoft's Encarta Encyclopedia
>not to mention the Armenian Holocost? If Germany were behaving this way about
>their holocost, would we tolerate it? From my perspective, for there is a time
>to all seasons. A time to be silent and a time to fight. Wisdom comes from
>discerning the difference.
No, I don't think so. Reconciliation cannot be achieved at the expense of
truth. It was the attempt to cover up or ignore the past that has led to most
of the recent violence in the Balkans.
++
Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>
>
> >
> I think you misunderstand the concept. "Omogeneia" is not a "blood"
> thing, it's a culture thing.
not entirely
>
> The population of Asia Minor has always been of highly mixed blood.
> Even in ancient times, the interior of Asia Minor was populated by
> Hittites, Medes, Persians, etc., who were Hellenized after the
> conquests of Alexander the Great.
>
> The numbers of invading Turks were too few to account for much of the
> gene pool of Turkey today. It's true that they interbred with the
> natives, but a more significant factor was the wholesale conversion of
> natives to Islam.
The invading Turkis were not only....Turks. Many of the beyliks were
minority or majority Mongol.
There is an interesting posting, by the way, on soc.culture.bulgaria
suggesting that Saint Nicholas was not a Greek becuase he was Lydian.
>
> Conversion was a one-way door that made one into a Turk. Never mind
> that some converts spoke Greek as a mother tongue for generations
> afterward, or that, conversely, some Christians took to speaking
> Turkish as a mother tongue. Religion was what made one either a Greek
> or a Turk.
concur - but the terms should be Roman or Turk. Romaios Roman.
Alexander Arnakis
<cla...@killspamchartertn.net> wrote:
>
>Actually that cultural definition of what it means to be an American is
>something some Greeks appear to find difficult to comprehend. Greek-
>Most of them are only part Greek. Why should a person who is a descendant
>of Greeks, French, Irish and Germans value their Greek heritage above the
>others?? They shouldn't!! But to listen to those person caught in a
>ghetto mentality, this should be done. Some of the persons in the GOA
>with this mentality are horrified by the 90% and up level of
>intermarriage with persons of non-hellenic background. "We can't have
>Xenoi polluting the gene pool" seems to be a concern. Americans with
>ethnic melting pot. God has not granted them any special dispensation to
>fate of the GOA, I wonder if the OCA and the Antiochians are the future
>of Orthodoxy long-term.
>
>Spanish, Swiss, Germans, Danes and Hungarians as well. Why should they
>pay special attention to the Greek aspect of their ancestry?? Whatever
>the meaning of Omogenia in Hellas, here in the USA it is a deeply
>offensive term and deeply offensive idea that has no place in Orthodoxy.
Everything that you say here may be true (from a certain perspective),
but keep in mind two things:
The Greeks of Greece (and therefore the recent arrivals here) have a
particular, ingrained attitude regarding their identity: on the one
hand, a feeling of cultural superiority, and on the other hand, an
innate defensiveness, a "circling of the wagons" mentality. Both these
feelings are amply justified by their historical experience.
America, in contrast, is the first truly "universal" country. Everyone
here is American, yet at the same time everyone is something else. The
"melting pot" is a myth; the reality is that America is a
multicultural mosaic. Why shouldn't the Greeks take their place in
this mosaic?
It's sad, yet touching, to see a 3rd- or 4th-generation
Greek-American, speaking hardly a word of Greek, visiting Greece for
the first time as a tourist and being welcomed as a long-lost brother.
To Greeks, for such a person to deny his or her Greekness is like a
kick in the teeth.
evagr...@my-deja.com
In article <e0v85ts2erjegfek7...@4ax.com>,
This includes the person with "mixed" ancestry? What happens to those
who are, say, 1/4 Irish or German etc;?
Aren't they also welcomed in those countries, not as long lost brothers
perhaps, but certainly closer than just "tourist"?
I think the situation has many ramifications. For the Greeks to only
focus on their uniqueness, rather than their universality, is the crux
of the problem.
I still remember Christos Yannaras making the point that "Hellenism"
was not a Greek, but a universal human heritage.
I think that far too often Greeks consider Hellenism to be their own
possession.( I might add that Orthodoxy is not Hellenism either).
( It's similar to U.S. Americans and "democracy".)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
DrGeor107b
truth<<
Steve,
That is a very important lesson for all of us.
George
DrGeor107b
>>Or to reiterate a quote of Metropolitan Iakovos of Krinis, presiding Hierarch
of Chicago, during one of his Clergy-Laity Diocesan Conferences a few years
back: "The rules are for you lay people, we who are ordained need no rules!"
And HEY!: Isn't HE the chairman of the charter committee?
Regards,
Louis Geo. Atsaves<<
Really? Then could you ask Harry's and your good Metropolitan why the Church
has bothered to collect so many canon laws through the years? Were they just
written for the laity?
As for the charter"
" Charter? What Charter? We don't need a
no stinking charter!
(Excerpt from a spaggetti church western).
DrGeor107b
>Drops of "Greek" blood (whatever that means) don't make one Greek.
>It's the culture, nominal religion, and, above all, ethnic
>self-identification.
Actually all this racial purity crap was an offshoot of T. H. Huxley's social
darwinism of the last century. In the ancient world and up until fairly
recently it was not an issue.
When Alexander the great conquered the known world he set out to Hellenize the
Barbaroi, or non greeks, thus bring them cultural salvation through the sword.
Unfortunately, this attitude has crept into the view of some Greeks toward
their Orthodoxy. Some of them do not differentiate their Orthodoxy and
Hellenism. This is what becomes a rub for not Greeks and why they find the word
"Omogenia" offensive when it is used to describe the faithful. There is nothing
wrong with using this term in conection with the so called "Diaspora Greeks" .
In this context it is not offensive, but if your are Orthodox and not Greek, in
this context, the term is exclusionary.
Dr. George
DrGeor107b
> BTW, "omogeneia" is not a dirty word. It's the way the Greeks of
> Greece see their relationship with their cousins throughout the world.
> They kind of expect all Greeks to stick together, to a greater or
> lesser extent.
Yes but when we Diaspora Greeks go over there, we are told we aren't really
Greeks and treated with distain. I had this experience myself when I found
myself talking with a monk on the Holy Mountain.
A seminarian from Thesoloniki preceived from my heavy American accent in Greek,
that I was "from over"and walked up to us
and said: " Why are you bothering to talk to him? he isn't a real Greek".
Now if that isn't a confusion of Hellenism and Christianity, I don't
know what is.
Dr. George
DrGeor107b
>>There is an interesting posting, by the way, on soc.culture.bulgaria
Well he certainly wasn't Italian! He was a fiesty one though. :-)
Doc :-)
DrGeor107b
>>America, in contrast, is the first truly "universal" country. Everyone
here is American, yet at the same time everyone is something else. The
"melting pot" is a myth; the reality is that America is a
multicultural mosaic. Why shouldn't the Greeks take their place in
this mosaic?<<
Absolutely none. I am a 1st generation Greek. I love my heritage. Heck, I grew
up with the blue and whiyte Delta 88's with the
"Zorba" and "Never on Sunday" horns. ( I know, not the best example of my
heritage ) :-). There is nothing wrong with being proud of being Greek,
Irish, German, or whatever. What is wrong is to equate one's faith with one's
cultural heritage.
They are apples and oranges. granted both have influences on one and other but
they are not the same.
From a Church perspective, such a view is herectical. Each Sunday, we proclaim
to be the One True Apostolic and Catholic Church, yet in our thinking, we
behave as a church, not the Church. Did Christ tell us to go out and baptize
all "Greeks" ? No , he said all nations. This is a command imperative, not an
optional statement .
The mission Christ gave us, is different from the mission of Hellenism. No
amount of Hellenism is capable of giving us what Christ did on the cross.
Therefore our allegiance should be to God first, and to all else, whether it be
country, culture or even family second. In most cases this is not an either or
proposition. One can be a Christan and be devoted to country, culture and
family. But placing anything above God is akin to idolatry.
In Christ,
Dr. George
++
What makes it all the more amusing is that Alexander the Great was from
two heritage backgrounds himself. And when you consider the women he
married, it becomes even more a multiethnic mix.
I keep imagining the Macedonian effect on the Iranian people....
Galina
sseekercitynet.com
gone before. There is nothing unique with them in this regard. Public
education and marriage and having a social and work life outside the
ethnic groups has always been the spoon of the mixing pot. All ethnic
groups who have resisted have failed, even those who have a particular
physical identification, such as the asians. There is a bit less
intermarrage with the latter but a generation or two leaves them with
about the same level of real ethnic identity as those "irish" who
celebrate st. patrics day.
Atsaves
which would be similar to "same blood." Genia translated means birth, or born,
omo means something similar to unified or sameness.
Others in this country have tried to put a different spin on it to include
others on the fringe of being Greek.
Yet when I go to Greece (my parents were born here which makes me what, third
generation?) I am not really a full blown Greek in the eyes of the natives.
Adding insult to injury, I married an Italian.
Kind of like a "caste" system, eh?
Regards,
Louis Geo. Atsaves
<< Subject: Omogenia is it pure BS?? was Re: Greek Orthodox Church of Australia
and Converts
From: Christopher cla...@killspamchartertn.net
Date: Wed, Jan 3, 2001 6:28 PM
Message-id: <MPG.14bd8dac4...@enews.newsguy.com>
amb...@hotmail.com
<P><a
href="http://www.angelfire.com/biz/seedwoman/Genealogy.html">Click Here
To Find Your Family Tree & more</a>
<font color=red><B></B></font>
<P><a href="http://www.geocities.com/stjude4us/pray.html">Click Here
For St. Jude Pray For Us</a>
<font color=red><B></B></font>
<P><a href="http://www.angelfire.com/biz/seedwoman/Children.html">Click
Here To Help The Children</a>
In article <MPG.14ab4ee6b...@enews.newsguy.com>,
Christopher <cla...@killspamchartertn.net> wrote:
>
> I found this on the net at
>
> http://www.cygnus.uwa.edu.au/~jgrapsas/pages/convert.html
>
> This is an Australian Greek Orthodox Site. There are things about
this
> that are quite disturbing if one reads "between the lines." One gets
the
> impression that the Greek Church down under has very little interest
in
> converts. Hellenic disdain for Xenoi and Barbaroi?? Does anyone know
if
> the Greek Church in Australia is stuck in a "ghetto" mentality?? Or
am I
> reading too much into this.
>
> To convert or not to convert?
> by Fr Leonidas
>
> No priestly act is of more far-reaching consequence than a conversion
to
> Orthodoxy. It crucially determines for all time the convert's
personal
> status, his marital rights and restrictions as well as his religious
> allegiance. If a pledge of unqualified loyalty to the Orthodox Church
is
> subsequently betrayed, the result is disastrous, not least for the
priest
> involved, should he have been guilty of an error of judgement in
> authorising the conversion on insufficient evidence of sincerity. In
that
> event, he is bound to feel some personal responsibility and liability
for
> every violation of Canon Law the convert may commit. For only through
his
> act in accepting a non-Orthodox into the Orthodox Church do actions
like
> not attending the Sacraments or not keeping the fast days become
grave
> breaches of Canon Law. Little wonder that many conscientious priests,
> under the weight of this crushing responsibility, contemplate
conversions
> with extreme, sometimes perhaps excessive, hesitation.
>
> The conditions for becoming an Orthodox Christian are simple enough
in
> definition. A properly qualified catechist, after instructing the
> candidate, must be satisfied that the candidate is genuinely willing
and
> able to accept the religious discipline of the Orthodox Church
without
> reservation, whereupon the formal act of conversion is carried out,
> either by baptism where the candidate has not been previously
baptised in
> the name of the Holy Trinity, or by the Sacrament of Holy
Chrismation,
> and the signing. of a letter by which the candidate on the one hand
is
> renouncing his former faith and on the other confessing his Orthodox
> faith.
>
> Conversion under these conditions is open to any person, irrespective
of
> race, colour or previous creed. A person so converted then has all
the
> rights and obligations of any Orthodox Christian. Strictly speaking,
the
> actual conversion from any faith (or none) to Orthodoxy is of course
> carried out by the proselyte himself. The desire to become an
Orthodox
> Christian is brought about by radical changes inside a person's heart
> determining all his future loyalties, his thinking, feelings and
actions,
> the mould of his very personality.
>
> A conversion is the most delicate heart operation to which a
person.could
> ever submit, and the onus rests on the candidate to prove that he is
> adequately prepared to undergo such an operation. Some may complete
the
> requisite preparation in intensive study and environmental experience
in
> a matter of months; others lacking in determination or opportunity,
may
> never be ready even after years of fruitless effort.
>
> How long this process takes is determined by the candidate not the
> priest. The ultimate test is certainly not the candidate's love for
an
> Orthodox party he or she seeks to marry. On the contrary, such an
> ulterior motive will militate against accepting the application.
>
> The criterion is the love of Orthodoxy, generated by such thorough
> familiarity and fascination with the Orthodox way of life as to
render
> all sacrifices and obstacles. Only if this love and belief in
Orthodoxy,
> in theory and practice, transcends any other love and loyalty, are
the
> conditions for admission truly fulfilled. But why are these
conditions so
> rigid and demanding?
>
> Almost every candidate (and many Greek Orthodox) question their
justice
> with the seemingly plausible argument: why should so much more be
> expected of a convert than most Orthodox are prepared to do for their
> Orthodoxy? Why should converts be more punctilious in their religious
> observance than are the majority of Orthodox?
>
> To begin with, we have no special interest in swelling our number by
> conversions. As Orthodox Christians we have a spiritual task and duty
to
> perform so numbers are relatively immaterial to the success of our
> mission on earth. True proselytes are welcome, but converts of
> questionable loyalty attenuate rather than consolidate our strength.
>
> Throughout the Christian era the Orthodox Church has been exposed to
> constant oppression and frequent massacres. Yet no Orthodox Christian
> ever worried about the survival of the Orthodox Church. Therefore the
> survival of the Orthodox Church does not depend on numbers, but
solely on
> the intensity of our Orthodox commitment.
>
> Moreover, a conversion is a religious naturalisation. Even for a
civil
> naturalisation - though effecting infinitely less significantly the
> innermost belief, the whole personality and the daily routine of the
life
> of the applicant - certain rigid requirements are universally
accepted.
>
> For the grant of citizenship, countries usually required a period of
at
> least two years, fluency in the vernacular, and certainly ready
> submission to all the laws of the land. Any alien declaring his
readiness
> to observe all the country's laws except one would be refused his
> naturalisation, and it would not help him to argue that there are
many
> native citizens who also sometimes transgress one regulation or
another.
> In these matters it is all or nothing.
>
> Yet when would-be converts are told that it may take two years or
more to
> gain the required knowledge and religious atmosphere (which even
those
> Orthodox who were baptised at birth must cultivate through years of
> religious education, plus living in an Orthodox Christian environment
> from birth), that they are expected to have some familiarity with the
> Greek language, and that they must undertake to observe the Canon Law
of
> the Orthodox Church, they argue, often amid a chorus of popular Greek
> applause, why should we have to meet requirements which so many
Greeks
> fall short of?
>
> It would be of little avail to an applicant for Australian
citizenship to
> resort to a similar argument. The incontestable answer would be that
> anyone born of Australian parents - whether good, bad or indifferent,
> whether he knows English and abides by the law or not - is
Australian.
> Even a criminal's citizenship cannot be disowned. But if a foreigner
> wants to become Australian, every effort may and must be made to
ensure
> that he will prove a law-abiding citizen, an asset and not a
liability.
> Likewise parents must accept their natural child, healthy or
crippled,
> upright or delinquent.
>
> But in adopting a child, they are free to choose, entitled to take
all
> reasonable precautions to make sure that the child will be a source
of
> pride and joy to them. Surely the arguments in favour of similar
> safeguards in admitting persons to the Orthodox faith and people are
no
> less compelling or convincing.
>
> Within these general principles, there is of course a degree of
> variation. Since the assessment of a candidate's sincerity and the
> inadequacy of his preparation is subject to a human estimation, there
is
> bound to be a subjective factor in any such judgment. One priest may
be
> more credulous, another more suspicious in accepting a declaration of
> submission to Orthodoxy. Diverse local conditions, too, may have an
> important bearing on the decision to admit proselytes.
>
> In Greece, for instance, where all converts will certainly live in an
> Orthodox environment, learn Greek, send their children to Greek
schools
> where religion is taught, and observe the Orthodox calendar - at
least in
> great measure - and where there is hardly any opportunity of becoming
> integrated into non-Orthodox society, it is obviously far easier to
> accept converts than in the Diaspora where these conditions do not
exist.
>
> Naturally, the circumstances prompting an application will invariably
be
> taken into account. A woman who wants to become an Orthodox Christian
> because she has fallen in love with a Greek, seeking to change her
> religion almost like one changes a passport on being married, will
find
> far less sympathy than parents who wish to convert an adopted non-
> Orthodox child because they could find no Orthodox child.
>
> Extreme compassion will also be shown in cases of non-Orthodox
children
> from mixed marriages. But these are clearly exceptions. As a rule, it
> will be found that anyone prepared to change his religion neither had
a
> deep religious allegiance before the change nor will have one after
the
> change. Those who can be, and are, admitted to the Orthodox Church
indeed
> turn out to be rather exceptional people.
>
> True proselytes live up to the qualifications so concisely expressed
by
> the most famous of them all, when Ruth the Moabite pledged:
>
> "Where you go, I will go; and where you lodge for the night, I will
> lodge"
> - sharing the life of the people she converted to;
>
> "your people will be my people"
> - joining the togetherness of the people she converted to;
>
> "and your God will be my God"
> - serving as a witness to religious commitments
>
> "where you die, I will die, and there shall I be buried" (Ruth 1:16-
17)
> - defending the beliefs and practices even to the grave.
>
> Anyone prepared to follow Ruth's example of total loyalty will be
> accepted into the Orthodox faith with open arms. But in the absence
of
> such candidates, we should occupy ourselves with the challenge to
convert
> should-be Greek Orthodox, rather than would-be Greek-Orthodox, to
> Orthodoxy.
Alexander Arnakis
>
>There is still a Turkish Orthodox Church, but tiny. I once posted their
>website (but can't find it again right now). One of the things they had
>on the website in support of a Turkish Orthodox Church was that so many
>of the profige from Turkey had to be trained in Greek language classes -
>from scratch. Even today, you and I know (and maybe some of the same
>people) people who grew up with Turkish and learned their Greek later
>and sometimes imperfectly.
That's probably the remnant of Papa-Efthim's group. To my knowledge,
they're not recognized by any canonical Orthodox church, least of all
by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Nor are they recognized by the Turkish
authorities.
It's a well-known fact that a certain proportion of the Greeks
exchanged under the Lausanne Treaty, particularly those from the
interior of Asia Minor, were exclusively Turkish-speaking. It did them
no good to claim that they were "Turkish Christians." All the
authorities involved, on both sides, knew that there was no such
animal. They were listed as "Turkophone Greeks" and exchanged along
with the rest.
It's rumored that in remote areas of Turkey, there are still
"crypto-Christians," people who to all outward appearances are
Turkish, but who conduct Orthodox worship in secret. If it ever came
into the open, their status would be in peril, since they illegally
evaded the compulsory population exchanges of 1923. Such people
obviously are in no position to sponsor Web sites.
DrGeor107b
I keep imagining the Macedonian effect on the Iranian people....
Galina
Before becoming too boastful though don't forget the effect on the Israelites
and
the Macabees.
Doc :-)
Doc :-)
DrGeor107b
Yet when I go to Greece (my parents were born here which makes me what, third
generation?) I am not really a full blown Greek in the eyes of the natives.
Adding insult to injury, I married an Italian.
Kind of like a "caste" system, eh?
Regards,
Louis Geo. Atsaves
Hey Louis,
Don't feel bad! I married a "Pilgrim-thes" ( Greeklish for pilgrim or
proskinites), from Cape Cod no less. her lineage goes right to the Mayflower.
We get xenophobia from both sides of the families ! After a while you learn to
laugh at it.
Doc :-)
Warecliff
>countryman,
>which would be similar to "same blood." Genia translated means birth, or
>born,
>omo means something similar to unified or sameness.
>
That was always my understanding; its a blood thing and not a cultural thing..
I do wonder, however, if one who was Greek by blood but not Orthodox would be
considered a member of the Omogenia in Greece. Here in the States I know of
some examples where a fellow who was of Greek descent, but not Orthodox, were
running for various national offices and were most assuredly considered members
of the Omogenia by Greek Americans. I don't know what Greeks in Greece thought.
>Yet when I go to Greece (my parents were born here which makes me what, third
>generation?) I am not really a full blown Greek in the eyes of the natives.
>Adding insult to injury, I married an Italian.
>
I've never been treated as a Greek from Greece, at least not after I told
people where I was born, (I usually get "are you from Peloponnesus? Where were
you born?) but I have always been treated as a "full blown Greek", especially
in the village, but then again my people came from the best village in Greece
so that might explain it. Even my Yankee wife is considered a member of the
village and certainly my boys are. By the way, Dr. George's Greek is light
years better than mine but my accent is better! Right George? :) When we were
in Greece during the Kosovo war, we were treated as part of the big Greek
conspiracy, while a number of Americans we met during that time were treated
poorly, or so they reported.
Jack Cliffordopoulos
Warecliff
Reconciliation
>Commission has taught us (well, at least those of us who were willinmg to
>learn) that one cannot deny the evils of the past, but one must face them.
Your country vaulted to the first ranks in the world with those commissions,
Steve. Around the world, in some of the darkest, bloodiest and most obscure
places, people working for social justice and the Rule of Law look to the
example of South Africa as a guide and hope for their own futures.
Sorry for being off topic, but this is a subject close to my heart and my work
and I don't often get to say "Bravo sas!" to a South African!
Jack Clifford
Atsaves
for five years now. If we don't need a charter from Constantinople to remain
"canonical," then hey, doesn't that mean we are already "autonomous?" Isn't
"autocephalous" a short step away from that?
Haven't our Hierachs already proven the point? Rules ARE made to be broken!
Regards,
Louis Geo. Atsaves
<< Subject: Re: Greek Orthodox Church of Australia and Converts
From: drgeo...@aol.com (DrGeor107b)
Date: Thu, Jan 4, 2001 10:09 AM
Message-id: <20010104110916...@ng-fr1.aol.com>
DrGeor107b
people where I was born, (I usually get "are you from Peloponnesus? Where were
you born?) but I have always been treated as a "full blown Greek", especially
in the village, but then again my people came from the best village in Greece
so that might explain it. Even my Yankee wife is considered a member of the
village and certainly my boys are. By the way, Dr. George's Greek is light
years better than mine but my accent is better! Right George? :)
Jack Cliffordopoulos
Jack you even look more Greek than me! When I first met you, I thought you were
the reincarnation of that famous statue of the Greek with the curly beard
throwing a spear.
As for your village, I know all about it, since my ancestral village was about
a stone throw away. Villages don't count. Don't you know that every diaspora
Greek comes form Athens! Even if they only lived there for
30 minutes while waiting for their flight to depart, they are form ATHENS!
Personally I love the life in the horio
( village). Why anyone would want to be from a smog infested city that makes
NYC look sparcely populated in beyond me. As for what I am treated as and what
I am, I am from Boston, practicing tooth drilling in the home I was born in.
Anything else is just a sugar coating that doesn't really make a heck of a lot
of difference.
Doc :-)
Alexander Arnakis
>
>From a Church perspective, such a view is heretical. Each Sunday, we proclaim
>to be the One True Apostolic and Catholic Church, yet in our thinking, we
>behave as a church, not the Church. Did Christ tell us to go out and baptize
>all "Greeks" ? No , he said all nations. This is a command imperative, not an
>optional statement .
>
Look at it this way: The Church as a whole (OK, the Orthodox Church,
if you want to put it that way) is universal, but there is nothing to
prevent particular segments of that Church from carrying out a special
mission to particular nationalities. This is why, for example, Sts.
Cyril and Methodius translated the Liturgy into Slavic for the Slavs.
I'm sure a Slavonic Liturgy wouldn't have been intelligible to Greeks
of the time.
So we have a Greek Orthodox Church for the Greeks, a Russian Orthodox
Church for the Russians, and so on. All are ecclesiastically co-equal,
and in communion with one another. Did you know that there is a
Russian Orthodox church in central Athens, not under the authority of
the Church of Greece? No one seems to have a problem with this.
So the various "ethnic" Orthodox churches in America are simply
carrying on this tradition.
If there is a need for a mission to the non-ethnic "Americans," then
by all means let there be an "American" Orthodox Church. And if the
ethnic identities of the immigrant Orthodox become so blurred that all
they consider themselves is undifferentiated "Americans," then let
them join this "American" Orthodox Church.
But for the Greeks at least, that day has not yet come. And if the
Greek Church, as the leading institution among Greek-Americans, does a
proper job of getting them to appreciate their Hellenic heritage, that
day will never come.
>The mission Christ gave us, is different from the mission of Hellenism. No
>amount of Hellenism is capable of giving us what Christ did on the cross.
>Therefore our allegiance should be to God first, and to all else, whether it be
>country, culture or even family second. In most cases this is not an either or
>proposition. One can be a Christian and be devoted to country, culture and
>family. But placing anything above God is akin to idolatry.
>
A Greek-centered branch of a universal Orthodoxy certainly wouldn't
dispute what you're saying. (Recognizing that certain people *within*
such a Church might, and do, put a higher priority on their Hellenism
than on their Orthodoxy.)
Alexander Arnakis
>
>Yes but when we Diaspora Greeks go over there, we are told we aren't really
>myself talking with a monk on the Holy Mountain.
>that I was "from over"and walked up to us
>
Maybe he thought you were polluted with "Western ideas"?
(My experience was the exact opposite, even on Mt. Athos, which
admittedly is not typical of Greece as a whole. But keep in mind that
there is a Greek dislike for the "brouklis," the Greek-American who
goes back to lord it over his less fortunate relatives.)