OCA-Supporters/ All Saints of North America Orthodox Church

Τετάρτη 25 Ιουλίου 2012

A History of the Orthodox Church


The history of the Orthodox Church actually begins in the Acts of the Holy Apostles, with the Descent of the Holy Spirit: When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance (Acts 2:1-4). As the text further tells us, on that same day, after St. Peter had preached to the gathered people, those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls (Acts 2:41), thus constituting the first Christian community at Jerusalem.
This first community of Christians, headed by St. James, the Brother of the Lord the first Bishop of the city was later scattered by the persecutions which followed the stoning of the first martyr of the Christian Church, St. Stephen: And on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the region of Judea and Samaria, except the Apostles (Acts 8:1).
At the same time, faithful to the Lord's command to go...and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19), the Apostles went out and preached wherever they went, first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles, so that in a surprisingly short time, Christian communities had sprung up in all the main centers of the Roman world and beyond. Their exploits are recorded in the Acts, as well in the inner tradition of the Orthodox Church.

The Holy Apostles.

St. Andrew the First-Called.
St. Andrew was a Galilean fisherman of Bethsaida and was the first called of the Apostles of Christ (John 1:37-40), to whom he brought his brother Simon, called Peter. According to Church tradition, he suffered martyrdom at Patras in Achaia on an X-shaped Cross (St. Andrew's Cross). Another tradition says that he visited Russia as far as the city of Kiev (while yet another Novgorod). His Feast Day is November 30.
St. Bartholemew.
In Holy Scripture, St. Bartholemew is to be identified with the Nathanael of John 1:45-51, of whom the Lord Himself witnessed, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile (John 1:47). According to Church tradition, he preached the Gospel in Lycaonia, India and Armenia, where he was martyred by being flayed alive. His Feast Day is June 11.
St. James the Elder.
St. James the Elder (so-called to distinguish him from the other Apostle, St. James the Younger) and his brother, John (the Evangelist), were fishermen the sons of Zebedee. This James, along with his brother and St. Peter, were especially beloved of the Lord. According to the Acts, he was beheaded by King Agrippa in Jerusalem (Acts 12:2), after first having preached in Spain. His Feast Day is April 30.
St. James the Younger.
St. James the Younger (so-called to distinguish him from the other Apostle of the same name; sometimes called the Son of Alphaeus), was the brother of St. Matthew. In St. Mark's Gospel he is said to be the son of Mary, one of the Holy Myrrhbearing Women (Mark 16:1). According to Church tradition, he labored in Judea and then accompanied St. Andrew to Edessa, preaching the Gospel. Later he traveled to Gaza (on the southern seacoast of Palestine), and from thereto Egypt, where he was martyred by crucifixion. His Feast Day is October 9.
St. John.
St. John the Evangelist (also the Theologian or the Divine), was a son of Zebedee and brother of St. James the Elder. In Holy Scripture he is referred to as the disciple, whom Jesus loved (John 13:23), and who leaned on his Master's breast at the Last Supper. To him was entrusted the Most-Holy Theotokos by Our Lord as He was dying on the Cross (John 19:26), and it was at St. John's house that her Holy Dormition occurred. St. John occupied an important place in the Apostolic ministry and, according to St. Paul, he, together with Peter and James were seen to be pillars of the Church in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:9). According to Church tradition, he was the last of the Apostles to die, ca. 100 A.D., and while exiled on the Isle of Patmos, he wrote the Apocalypse (or Revelation). To him is also attributed the Gospel and the three Epistles that bear his name. His Feast Days are May 8 and September 26.
St. Jude.
This Apostle, the brother of James the Just (both being half-brothers or perhaps, cousins, of the Lord), is also called Thaddaeus or Lebbaeus (John 14:22; Matt. 10:3). To him is attributed the Epistle of St. Jude. According to Church tradition, he preached in Syria and Edessa, eventually being martyred in Persia with his fellow Apostle, Simeon Zealotes. His Feast Day is June 19.
St. Lebbaeus.
[See St. Jude].
St. Matthew.
St. Matthew (also called Levi the son of Alphaeus (Mark 2:14)) was a brother of St. James the Younger and was a tax collector. The First Gospel is attributed to him, and, according to many scholars, was first written for the Hebrews. According to Church tradition, St. Matthew preached to the Jews first, and then traveled to Ethiopia, Macedonia, Syria and Persia, dying a natural death, according to one tradition, or by martyrdom, according to another. His Feast Day is November 16.
St. Matthias.
According to the Acts, St. Matthias was chosen by lot to fill the place among the Twelve Apostles left vacant by the Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:15-26). According to Church Tradition he is said to have preached in Ethiopia and Armenia, eventually suffering death by crucifixion. His Feast Day is August 9.
St. Nathanael.
[See St. Bartholomew].
St. Peter.
St. Peter was a brother of St. Andrew, and, together with him, was a fisherman on the Sea of Galilee. Called by the Lord to become a fisher of men (Matt. 4:19), he was originally named Simon, but later his name was changed to Peter (in Aramaic Cephas, meaning rock) by the Lord. This was in response to Peter's declaration: You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God (Matt. 16:16), for the Lord then said to him, You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18). Holy Scripture amply witnesses to the fact that Peter occupied a primary place among the Apostles, although not to the extreme claimed by the Roman Catholic Church. His activities after the Resurrection are witnessed to in the Acts and, according to Church tradition, he was later martyred in Rome, being crucified upside down at his own request, since he felt himself not worthy to die in the same manner as the Lord Himself. The two Epistles of St. Peter are ascribed to him and he is celebrated, together with the other chief Apostle, St. Paul, on June 29.
St. Philip.
St. Philip, like Peter and Andrew, came from Bethsaida in Galilee (Matt. 10:3) and was called early in the Lord's earthly ministry, bringing Nathanael with him (John 1:43ff.). According to Church tradition, he was a missionary in Phrygia and died there (by martyrdom, according to some) at Hierapolis. His Feast Day is November 14, the next day being the beginning of the Nativity Fast (for which reason it is often called St. Philip's Fast).
St. Simeon Zealotes.
St. Simeon Zealotes (or the Zealot; sometimes the Canaanite), according to Church tradition, traveled through Egypt and Africa, then through Mauretania and Libya, preaching the Gospel of Christ. Later he is said to have traveled to Britain, where he was martyred by the Romans on a Cross. Another tradition says that he was martyred with St. Jude in Persia. His Feast Day is May 10.
St. Thaddaeus.
[See St. Jude].
St. Thomas.
St. Thomas, called Didymus (or the Twin, John 11:16), appears several times in St. John's Gospel, which gives a good impression of the sort of man he was: ready to die with the Master (John 11:16); skeptical about the Resurrection, yet, when the Risen Christ manifested Himself to him, is whole-hearted in his belief (John 20:24-28). According to Church tradition, St. Thomas preached in Parthia (Persia), Edessa and India, where he is held in great veneration as a founder of the Church there, eventually suffering martyrdom. According to Church tradition, his remains were buried in Edessa. His Feast Day is October 6 and also the Sunday following Holy Pascha (St. Thomas Sunday).
Judas Iscariot.
This disciple, forever a symbol of treachery, the son of Simon, was from the town of Kerioth (from Kerioth Iscariot). According to the Gospel, he stole from the common treasury of which he had charge (John 12:5-6) and ultimately betrayed his Lord for thirty pieces of silver (Matt. 26:14-15). After the Crucifixion of Jesus, in deep remorse, Judas cast the pieces of silver into the Temple before the Chief Priests and Elders, later going out and hanging himself. With the money, now considered blood money, a potter's field was bought to bury strangers in (Matt. 27:3-10).
St. Paul.
St. Paul was a strict Pharisee, having studied under the respected Rabbi Gamaliel at Jerusalem (Acts 22:3). At a young age he had learned the trade of a tent-maker (Acts 18:1-3) and had inherited Roman citizenship from his father (Acts 22:28). The young Saul (as he was known before his conversion to Christianity) was zealous for Judaism and consented to the stoning of St. Stephen, later actively joining in the persecution of the Christians (Acts 8:3). While on the way to Damascus, to persecute the Christians there, he had a sudden vision of the Lord, Who rebuked him for his persecution, and later he converted to the Christian Faith (Acts 9:1-22). After this conversion experience, St. Paul went on to become one of the greatest of the Apostles, zealously bringing the Light of Christ to the Gentiles, eventually going to Rome where he received martyrdom by beheading. During his missionary journeys, amply attested to in the Acts, he wrote letters of encouragement to various congregations and individuals along the way, and thirteen of them (fourteen, if the Epistle to the Hebrews is accepted as of Pauline origin) have been accepted as part of the New Testament. Together with St. Peter, he is commemorated on June 29.

Other Apostles.

St. Barnabas.
St. Barnabas, a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith (Acts 11:24), was a Jew from Cyprus, closely associated with the work of St. Paul. It was Barnabas who was sent to the Christians at Antioch, fetching Paul from Tarsus to help him. Later, he and Paul were sent on the first missionary journey, which began on the island of Cyprus, of which Church St. Barnabas is said to have founded. According to Church tradition, he was martyred on Cyprus at Salamis. He commemorated together with St. Bartholomew on June 11.
St. James the Brother of the Lord.
St. James was a half-brother (or perhaps a cousin) of the Lord, and was the first Bishop of the Church at Jerusalem, being called by St. Paul a pillar of that Church, together with Peter and John (Gal. 2:9). At the first general Church council, the Council of Jerusalem, James is depicted as having a leading role (Acts 15:12-21). Having ruled the Church in Jerusalem wisely (for which reason he is often called the Just), St. James was martyred there. Being taken to the top of the Temple wall, he was commanded to convince the people to turn away from Christ, which he refused to do, speaking to them in quite the opposite manner. Thereupon he was thrown down from that high point to the ground, where he was stoned and beaten to death. The Epistle of St. James is attributed to him and his Feast Day is celebrated on October 23.
St. Luke.
St. Luke, the Beloved Physician (Col. 4:14), is the author of the Gospel bearing his name, as well as the Acts of the Apostles. He was a Gentile convert, probably a Greek, and was a companion of St. Paul in his later missionary journeys, concerning which he related in the Acts. According to Church tradition, St. Luke was an iconographer and wrote the first Icon of the Most-Holy Theotokos. St. Luke died, unmarried, in Greece, at the age of eighty-four, and is commemorated on October 18.
St. Mark.
The Second Gospel is attributed to this Apostle, who some say was the young man who fled away naked at the arrest of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:51-52). In the Acts, he is called John Mark (Acts 12:12; 15:37), the son of Mary, at whose house in Jerusalem the early Christians stayed (Acts 12:12), and he was a cousin of the Apostle Barnabas (Col. 4:10). He figures several times in the Acts, at one point being the source of a temporary rift between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:36-40), but later he was with Paul during his first imprisonment at Rome (Col. 4:10). In his 1st Epistle, St. Peter mentions Mark as being with him, styling him my son (1 Pet. 5:13). According to Church tradition, St. Mark wrote his Gospel at the request of the brethren in Rome, who asked him to relate what he had learned from St. Peter. He is said to have preached the Gospel at Alexandria, Egypt, and was its first Bishop, being martyred there during the reign of the Emperor Trajan. His Feast Day is April 25.

The Persecutions.

After these humble beginnings, Christianity spread far and wide throughout the known world, but the Good News of Christ aroused intense opposition, and the first three centuries of the Church were characterized by sporadic, but bloody, persecutions. Church tradition is full of the lives of these early martyrs for the faith, and one cannot but admire the courage and perseverance of these heroes who willingly gave up their lives rather than denounce Christ. Among these were Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, burned at the stake when over eighty years old, Justin the Martyr, and Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, as well as many other men and women martyrs, who are commemorated in the Church Calendar.
These persecutions were often local in character and of limited duration, and although there were long periods of de-facto toleration, the threat of persecution was always there. Christians knew that at any time the threat of persecution could become a very present reality and the idea of martyrdom held a central place in the spiritual outlook of these warriors for Christ. Later, when persecution and martyrdom ceased to be a major concern of the Christians, the idea, nonetheless, did not disappear, but took other forms. Chief among these was the monastic life, regarded by many as a form of martyrdom equal to bodily death.
In 312, however, a momentous event occurred, for in that year, seeing, in a vision, a Cross in the sky with the inscription, In this sign conquer, and placing the Cross on the shields of his army, the Emperor Constantine defeated a rival army and ultimately became the first Roman Emperor to embrace Christianity. In 313, Constantine and his fellow Emperor Licinius issued the Edict of Milan, which proclaimed the official toleration of the Christian faith. Fifty years later, the Emperor Theodosius carried this policy even further when he legislated Christianity as the only accepted religion of the Empire, while outlawing paganism.
In 324, Constantine moved his imperial capital from Rome to Byzantium, on the shores of the Bosporus, where he built a new capital, Constantinople (dedicated in 330). From here, in 325, he summoned to Nicea what was to be the first of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

The Seven Councils.

The conciliar principle of deciding matters of doctrinal and disciplinary importance began with the Council of Jerusalem, described in Acts 15, where the Apostles met to decide whether Gentile converts should be subject to the Mosaic Law. (They were not!). With this Council in mind, and the various local councils which met at diverse parts of the Empire in the period prior to Nicea, the Church established an important principle: In council, the members of the Church, so to speak, can together claim an authority which individually none of them possess. The Seven Ecumenical Councils which met in the period from 325 to 787 performed two basic tasks: 1) They formulated the visible, ecclesiastical organization of the Church, setting the ranking of the Five Patriarchates; and 2) they defined, once and for all, the teachings of the Church on faith, formulating the basic dogmas concerning the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Nicea I (325).
This Council condemned the heresy of Arianism, which had contended that the Son was inferior to the Father and was, in fact, created. The Fathers here declared that the Son is one in essence (homoousios) with the Father, and formulated the first part of what eventually became the Creed the Symbol of Faith. In addition, three great Sees were singled out Rome, Alexandria and Antioch (Canon 6), and the See of Jerusalem, although still subject to the Metropolitan of Caesarea, was given the next place in honor after Antioch (Canon 7).
Constantinople I (381).
This Council expanded the Nicene Creed, developing the teachings concerning the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father; Who, with the Father and Son, is worshipped and glorified..., against the heresy of the Pneumatomachi (Spiritsmashers) and the Macedonians (followers of Macedonius), who could not accept the Third Person of the Trinity as equal to the other Two. It was in this period that we see the activities of the great Cappadocian Fathers, St. Gregory Nazianzus (the Theologian), St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nyssa, as well as the great Alexandrian Father, St. Athanasius the Great. The First Council of Constantinople also decreed that Constantinople, the new capital, should hold the next place of honor after Rome, since it was now the New Rome (Canon 111).
Ephesus (431).
This Council met to discuss the heresy of the Nestorians, who could not accept that God and Man had been united in one Person, Christ, refusing to call the Virgin Mary, Theotokos (or Birthgiver of God). Supported primarily by St. Cyril of Alexandria, this Council affirmed that Mary was truly Theotokos, since, as the Evangelist had proclaimed, the Word was made flesh (John 1:14), and the Virgin had borne a single and undivided Person Who is, at the same time, God and Man.
Chalcedon (451).
This Council met to discuss the heresy of the Monophysites who held that in Christ the human nature had been merged into the divine, so that there was, after the divine union, only one nature. The Bishops of this Council accepted the so-called Tome of Pope St. Leo the Great of Rome, which affirmed the belief that the one and the same son, perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, [is] truly God and truly man...acknowledged in two natures unconfused, unchanged, undivided and inseparable. In addition, the place of Constantinople after that of Rome was confirmed, as was that of Jerusalem in the fifth place of honor.
A tragic result of this Council (and that of Ephesus prior) was the splitting apart from the main body of a large group of Christians adhering to either the Nestorian or Monophysite view. The Nestorians were found basically in Persia and Mesopotamia, and were especially decimated by the Islamic and Turkish onslaughts, whereas the Monophysites were strong in Africa (Egypt and Ethiopia the present Coptic Church), Armenia, and India (the Jacobite Church).
Constantinople II (553).
This Council met to further reinterpret the decrees of Chalcedon, seeking to explain how the two natures of Christ unite to form a single person. It affirmed that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is one of the Holy Trinity, one and the same divine Person (hypostasis), Who has united personally (hypostatically) in Himself the two natures of God and Man, without fusing them together and without allowing their separation. Certain teachings of Origen, including his teaching concerning the pre-existence of the soul, among other things, were also expressly condemned.
Constantinople III (681).
This Council met to condemn the Monothelite heresy which held that in the union of the two natures in Christ, the human will was merged into the divine as one will, since the two natures were united into one person. The Council, however, held that if Christ has two natures, he also has two wills human and divine.
Nicea II (787).
This Council met to affirm the belief of the Orthodox that veneration of the Holy Icons was proper and necessary for a correct understanding of the Incarnation of Christ, against those who held that Icon-veneration was idolatry and that all Icons should be destroyed (Iconoclasts). This Seventh Council was also the last of the Ecumenical Councils accepted as such by the Orthodox Church, although the possibility does exist that, in principle, more could be convened. The Iconoclast controversy did not end until after another rising of the heretics beginning in 815, which was finally suppressed by the Empress Theodora in 843. This final victory of the Holy .Icons in 843 is known as the Triumph of Orthodoxy, and is commemorated on the First Sunday of Great Lent. Thus, with the resolution of the Iconoclast controversy, the Age of the Seven Councils came to an end.
During this same period, there were two other major currents that were to have a profound effect on the Byzantine Empire and Orthodoxy. The first of these was the rise of monasticism. It began as a definite institution in Egypt in the 4th Century and rapidly spread across the Christian world. It literally began at a time when the persecutions had ended, and the Monks, with their austere life, were, in a real sense, martyrs when martyrdom of blood had virtually ceased. At a time when people were in danger of forgetting that life in the world the earthly kingdom was not the Kingdom of God, the Monks and their withdrawal from society, reminded Christians that God's Kingdom, in fact, is not of this world.
The second major current in this period was the rise and rapid spread of Islam, the most striking characteristic of which was the speed of its expansion. Within fifteen years after the death of Mohammed in 632, his followers had captured Syria, Palestine and Egypt, and in fifty years, they were already at the gates of Constantinople. Within 100 years, they had swept across North Africa and through Spain. The Byzantine Empire lost the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, and until the actual fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Empire was never free from attack.

The Great Schism.

In 1054 occurred one of the greatest tragedies of the Christian world the Great Schism between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches. Officially proclaimed at Constantinople in that year by the Papal Legate, Cardinal Humbert, it was, in a sense, the culmination of a process that had been taking place for several centuries, ultimately centering on two major controversies: Papal authority and the Filioque.
Originally the two branches of Christendom had begun to drift apart because of cultural and language differences. Then, in 800, we see a political split with the proclamation of Charlemagne as the Holy Roman Emperor there were now two! The hegemony of the Arabs over the Mediterranean and their expansion into the Balkans made direct contact difficult, if not impossible, between East and West. And even in theology the two branches of Christendom began to differ in their basic approaches, with the Latins being more practical, the Greeks more speculative; the Latins more influenced by legal ideas nurtured by the basic concepts of Roman law, while the Greeks were influenced by worship and the Holy Liturgy; the Latins were more concerned with redemption, the Greeks with deification. These different approaches, practiced in greater isolation from each other, eventually led to the two main theological problems outlined earlier.
The first problem was that of Papal authority. The Greeks were willing to ascribe to the Pope of Rome a primacy of honor, considering him to be the first among equals, whereas the Pope believed his power of jurisdiction to extend to the East as well as the West, the Greeks jealously guarding the autonomy of the other Patriarchates. The Pope saw infallibility as his sole prerogative, whereas the Greeks insisted that in matters of faith, the ultimate decisions belonged to an Ecumenical Council consisting of all the Bishops of the Universal Church.
The second great problem was the Filioque (Latin and the Son), first inserted into the Creed at the Council of Toledo in Spain in 589 and later adopted by the whole Western Church. Whereas the original wording of the Creed ran, and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father..., the Latin insertion changed it to read, and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son__ The Orthodox objected to this insertion on two grounds: 1) the Ecumenical Councils had expressly forbidden any changes to be introduced into the Creed, and 2) this insertion disturbed the balance between the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, leading to a false understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in the world.
Prior to the Schism of 1054, there had been another breach, the so-called Photian Schism, in the 9th Century, but it had been officially terminated in the latter years of the reign of Patriarch Photius. The breach of 1054, however, although not universally applied at first, was never healed, even after several attempts to do so, most noticeably at the Council of Lyons in 1274 and the Council of Florence in 1438-9, when the Turks were already threatening Constantinople, but these reunion attempts were doomed to failure. Probably the deciding factor in the permanence of the Schism had been the capture and sack of Constantinople by the Latin Crusaders in 1204, which forever after remained indelibly imprinted on the consciousness of the Orthodox.
In 1453, a crucial event occurred in world Orthodoxy, with the Fall of Constantinople to the Turkish Sultan, Mohammed II. The Greek-speaking Churches fell under the heavy yoke of Islam, and for nearly 500 years labored in servitude, only emerging again with the Balkan Revolutions of the 19th Century and World War I. In the meantime, the focus of Orthodoxy shifted to the North, to the domains of the Most Pious Tsars of Russia.

Notable Fathers of the Early Period.

St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage ( 258).
St. Cyprian, commemorated on August 31, was Bishop of Carthage during the persecutions of the Emperor Decius (250). He died as a martyr in 258, and among his many writings concerning Church life, the most important is On the Unity of the Catholic Church, which sets forth the role of the Bishop in the ecclesiastical structure.
St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch ( 107).
St. Ignatius was the second Bishop of Antioch and is commemorated on December 20 and January 29. Martyred in the Arena at Rome, while on his way to martyrdom, he wrote seven letters to Christian communities, as well as to St. Polycarp, which contain valuable information on the dogmas, organization and liturgy of the early Church.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons ( 202).
St. Irenaeus, who is commemorated on August 23, was a disciple of St. Polycarp, and, as a Westerner, he succeeded St. Photinus as Bishop of Lyons. His major doctrinal work is Against Heresies, which defends Orthodoxy against the Gnostics, borrowing heavily on both human reason and Holy Scripture and Tradition, serving as an important witness to Church traditions of his time.
St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna ( 167).
St. Polycarp was a disciple of St. John the Theologian and is commemorated as a martyr on February 23. The account of his martyrdom, the earliest detailed account of a martyr, gives an excellent picture of his character and the steadfastness of his Christian faith.

Notable Fathers of the Early Byzantine Period.

St. Anthony the Great ( 356).
St. Anthony, commemorated January 17, is considered to be the Father of monasticism, and The Life of St. Anthony, by St. Athanasius, presents him as a truly inspiring example of monastic ascetical perfection. During the Arian controversies, he risked his life defending the Orthodox teachings of St. Athanasius in Alexandria.
St. Athanasius the Great, Patriarch of Alexandria ( 373).
St. Athanasius, commemorated January 18 and May 2, was a great defender of the Orthodox faith during the Arian controversies and was exiled five times for his labors. Among his major writings are The Incarnation of Christ and The Life of St. Anthony, which serve as major inspirations for Orthodox theology and monastic spirituality.
St. Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia ( 379).
St. Basil, commemorated January 1 and January 30, was a notable theologian and spiritual writer of the 4th Century and is noted for his many writings on numerous theological and spiritual subjects, as well as commentaries on Holy Scripture. During the Sundays of Great Lent, as well as on his Feast Day (Jan. 1), the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great is served, although probably only the prayers are actually of this Saint.
St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria ( 444).
St. Cyril, commemorated on January 18 and June 9, was the leader in the defense of Orthodoxy against the Nestorians, and was a firm defender of the veneration of the Virgin Mary as Theotokos. He was especially prominent in the deliberations of the Third Ecumenical Council.
St. Ephraim the Syrian ( 373-9).
St. Ephraim, commemorated January 28, was a major spiritual writer and hymnographer of the 4th Century, and is especially noted in Orthodox liturgical life for, among other things, his inspiring work, The Lenten Prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian, which is said at all of the weekday services of Great Lent.
St. Gregory the Theologian, Archbishop of Constantinople ( 389).
St. Gregory, commemorated January 25 and 30, was a fellow student and friend of St. Basil the Great and was a leading opponent of the Arians. He has been honored by the Church with the title Theologian, being one of only three, so honored (the others being St. John the Evangelist, and St. Simeon the New Theologian), primarily because of his Five Theological Orations.
St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (4th Cent.).
St. Gregory was the younger brother of St. Basil the Great and is commemorated on January 10. He is especially known for his spiritual writings, as well as various dogmatic works, including his Great Catechism.
St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople ( 407).
St. John Chrysostom (the Golden-mouth), commemorated January 27 and 30 and November 13, was one of the greatest preachers of his time (late 4th Century) and was known for his zeal for Orthodoxy and his passionate defense of the poor, boldly exposing the vices of his age, for which reason he was eventually deposed and exiled. The bulk of his works are sermons on Holy Scripture, especially the Epistles of St. Paul, as well as other ascetical and pastoral works, including his On the Priesthood. To St. John is attributed the usual Divine Liturgy, although, as in the case of that of St. Basil the Great, probably only certain prayers are properly his.

Notable Fathers of the Later Byzantine Period.

St. Gregory the Dialogist, Pope of Rome ( 604).
St. Gregory the Dialogist, commemorated March 12, was Pope of Rome in the 7th Century and was noted for his many literary works, including his Dialogues on the monastic Saints of Italy. To him is ascribed the writing-down of the beautiful Gregorian Chants as well as the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, during which he is specially commemorated.
St. Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessalonica ( ca. 1360).
St. Gregory, commemorated on November 14 and the Second Sunday of Great Lent, was a pious Monk of Mt. Athos, and later was elected to the See of Thessalonica as its Bishop. He is noted for his defense of the contemplative life of hesychasm (inner silence), teaching concerning the uncreated Light of Tabor and the Divine Energies of God, through which man can have true communion with God.
St. John of Damascus (Damascene ( 776)).
St. John, commemorated December 4, was noted for his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, a major dogmatic work, as well as his zealous defense of the Holy Icons, for which he suffered the severing of his hand (miraculously restored by the prayers of the Mother of God). He is also noted for his many sermons on Feast Days, as well as numerous hymns, extensively used in Orthodox liturgical services.
St. Mark, Archbishop of Ephesus (15th Cent.).
St. Mark, commemorated January 19, accompanied the Byzantine Emperor to the Council of Florence, and single-handedly defended the Orthodox faith against the Latins. His brilliant defense of Orthodoxy and his letters after the Council were largely responsible for the Orthodox rejection of this false Council.
St. Photius the Great, Patriarch of Constantinople ( 891).
St. Photius, commemorated February 6, was a zealous defender of Orthodoxy against the Latin error of the Filioque, for which he suffered much. He wrote on the Procession of the Holy Spirit and was responsible for the commissioning of Sts. Cyril and Methodius for the conversion of the Slavs.
St. Simeon the New Theologian ( 1021).
St. Simeon, commemorated March 12 and October 12, was noted as a brilliant spiritual writer, whose works hold a place of honor in the Phllokalia, a major monastic spiritual work. For this reason he endured persecution and also received the veneration of the Orthodox Church which honors him as the New Theologian.

The Conversion of the Slavs.

Of major importance in the history and development of Orthodoxy was the conversion of the Slavs and the shifting of the focus of the Church to the northern regions of Bulgaria, Serbia, Moravia, Romania, and then Russia. In the middle of the 9th Century, Patriarch Photius initiated large scale missionary labors in these regions by sending out the two brothers Constantine (in monasticism Cyril 1869) and Methodius (885 both are commemorated May 11), first to the Khazar State north of the Caucasus (this was largely unsuccessful) and then to Moravia (Czechoslovakia) in 863.
The Prince of Moravia, Rostislav, desired that his people hear the Word of God in their own language and the two brothers were apt missionaries in this respect as they had developed an alphabet, adapted from the Greek, which later was called Cyrillic (after St. Cyril). Using a local Macedonian dialect which they had heard near their birthplace of Thessalonica, the brothers began translating the liturgical books, Holy Scripture, etc., into this dialect, using the new alphabet which they had developed. This new liturgical language Church Slavonic became of crucial importance in the extension of the Orthodox faith into the Balkans and ultimately to Russia. This was so, since, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, which continued to insist on the use of Latin, the use of Church Slavonic allowed the new converts to hear the Gospel and the services in a language they could understand.
The Mission to Moravia was ultimately doomed to failure because of the jealousy and persecution of German missionaries working in the same area. The brothers traveled to Rome (where St. Cyril died)and placed themselves under the protection of the Pope, but this was not honored by the Germans in Moravia and after the death of St. Methodius in 885, his followers were expelled from the country.
The missionary labors of Cyril and Methodius were not in vain, however, for their disciples were successful in Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria. Led by St. Clement of Ochrid (commemorated November 25), the missionaries were successful and in 869, Tsar Boris of Bulgaria himself was baptized. The Bulgarian Church grew rapidly and about 926, under Tsar Simeon, an independent Patriarchate was established there, recognized by Constantinople in 927 (although later suppressed), and the Bulgarian Church became the first national Slavic Church.
The missionaries were likewise successful in Serbia and with the baptism of Prince Mutimir ( 891), Serbia became officially Christian. After a period of vacillation between East and West, Serbia came under the sway of Constantinople. Under St. Sava ( 1237 commemorated January 12), the Serbian Church became partially independent with his consecration in 1219 as Archbishop of Serbia, and in 1346 a Serbian Patriarchate was established with the consecration of Bishop Ioannikios, recognized by Constantinople in 1375.
Missionaries from Bulgaria traveled to the Romanian lands and by the end of the 9th Century portions of the Romanian people had been Christianized, adopting the Slavonic Liturgy, but it was not really until the rise of the Wallachian Moldavian principalities in the 14th Century that the Church actually began to thrive. In 1359 a Wallachian Metropolitan was appointed by Constantinople to the new See of Argesin the foothills of the Transylvanian Alps and in 1401, the Romanian Metropolitan of Suceava in Moldavia was recognized by Constantinople.
The missionaries had also penetrated into Croatia, Dalmatia, Illyria, Bosnia and Montenegro, but these areas were, for the most part, under the influence and control of the Latin West during this period.

The Conversion of Russia The Russian Orthodox Church.

Missionaries penetrated into Russia during this period and the Russian Princess Olga was converted to Christianity in 955, although the effective Christianization of Russia actually received its greatest impetus with the conversion of Olga's grandson, Vladimir, in 988. According to Russian tradition, Grand Prince Vladimir of Kiev decided that an official religion was necessary for his country and he was unsure which to choose: the Islam of the Volga Bulgars, the Judaism of the Khazars (on the lower Volga), the Latin Christianity of the Germans, or the Orthodox faith of the Greeks. Accordingly he sent envoys to the various regions to enquire of their faiths and to make a report to him.
The envoys fulfilled their appointed mission and then reported to Vladimir:
When we journeyed among the Bulgarians [of the Volga region], we beheld how they worship in their temple, called a mosque, while they stand ungirt. The Bulgarian bows, sits down, looks hither and thither like one possessed, and their is no happiness among them, but instead only sorrow and a dreadful stench. Their religion is not good. Then we went among the Germans, and saw them performing many ceremonies in their temples; but we beheld no glory there. Then we went on to Greece, and the Greeks led us to the edifices where they worship their God, and we knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth. For on earth there is no such splendor or such beauty, and we are at a loss how to describe it. We know only that God dwells there among men, and their service is fairer than the ceremonies of other nations.... [From the Russian Primary Chronicle].
After receiving the report of the envoys, Vladimir went to war with the Byzantine Empire and laid siege to the Greek city of Kherson. He promised to accept Christianity if he was successful in this campaign and after the capture of the city, he did, in fact, embrace Orthodoxy and was given in marriage Anna, the sister of the Byzantine Emperors Basil and Constantine. Returning to his capital of Kiev, Vladimir ordered that all pagan idols be destroyed. The people were exhorted to renounce paganism whereupon they embraced the Orthodox faith and received Baptism in 988. From this date Russia became officially Christian.
With the conversion of Vladimir (later canonized by the Russian Church commemorated July 15), Orthodoxy spread rapidly and already, within fifty years, the Russian Church had her first canonized Saints, the martyred brothers Boris and Gleb ( 1015 commemorated together on July 24). In 1051 the first Russian Monastery (The Monastery of the Caves) was founded in Kiev by St. Anthony ( 1073 commemorated July 10), later reorganized by St. Theodosius ( 1074 commemorated May 3 and August 14; he and St. Anthony are commemorated together on September 2). In 1037, Theopemptos was consecrated Metropolitan of Kiev and all but two of the Metropolitans of this period were Greeks, appointed by Constantinople. (The first Russian Metropolitan was Hilarion in 1051, and the other Clement in 1147). To this day, the Russian Church still sings in Greek the greeting to a Bishop, Eis polla eti, Despota,in recognition of the debt owed by the Russian Church to Greek Byzantium.
Disaster befell the Kievan State in 1237 with the onslaught of the Mongols, who ruled until 1480, and during this period only the Church kept alive national consciousness, much as was later done by the Greek Church under the Turkish yoke. The primary See of the Russian Church was moved from Kiev to Moscow by St. Peter, Metropolitan of Kiev ( 1326 commemorated December 21), and henceforth ceased to be the city of the chief Hierarch.
Three important Saints shone in this period: St. Alexander Nevsky, Prince of Novgorod ( 1263 commemorated August 30 and November 23), who preserved the political structure of his Principality (alone unharmed by the Mongols in their invasion) against the Swedes, Germans and Lithuanians; St. Sergius of Radonezh ( 1392 commemorated September 25 and July 5), founder of the famous Trinity St. Sergius Monastery at Sergiev Posad (Zagorsk) near Moscow, (from which Monks spread out through all of Northern Russia), probably one of Russia's greatest national figures (as was St. Sava in Serbia); and St. Stephen, Bishop of Perm ( 1396 commemorated April 26) who, in a sense, was the first of the long line of missionaries who were eventually to come to Russian America.
After the Council of Florence in 1440, Constantinople had accepted union with the Roman Catholic Church and Russia could not accept a Metropolitan from there. Finally, in 1448, a council of Russian Bishops elected their own Metropolitan and from this date the Russian Church has reckoned her independence. In 1453 Constantinople fell to the Turks and from this date the Russian Church remained the sole free branch of Orthodoxy. Men began to see Moscow as the Third Rome, and the Grand Duke of Moscow assumed the titles of the Byzantine Emperors Autocrat and Tsar the earthly protector of Orthodoxy. Accordingly, with the rising power of Russia, in 1589, the head of the Russian Church was raised to the rank of Patriarch (the first being Patriarch Job), ranking fifth after Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.
The Russian Church was not without its own turmoils however. In 1503 came the beginnings of a split in the monastic ranks between the Non-Possessors (followers of St. Nilus of Sora ( 1508 commemorated May 7)), who argued for monastic poverty, and the Possessors (followers of St. Joseph of Volokolamsk, 1515, commemorated September 9), who defended monastic landholding. The Non-Possessors were more lenient and gentle concerning the treatment of heretics, considering it to be solely a Church matter, while the Possessors, great supporters of the idea of the Third Rome, believed in a close association between Church and State in such matters (and many others as well). In this struggle the Possessors were victorious, but recognizing the sanctity of both leaders, the Church has enrolled both Joseph and Nilus in the Calendar of Saints.
In the mid-17th Century there occurred in the Russian Church a major split due to the liturgical reforms of Patriarch Nikon (1605-1681) who attempted to correct certain corruptions in the liturgical books and liturgical practice. The result was the splitting off of the Old Believers, who resisted the changes (many of which were ill-founded), as well as their persecution, and this schism has endured to the present day. The leaders of the Old Believers, including the Archpriest Avakkum, were burned at the stake and Nikon himself suffered persecution, since the Council of
Moscow, which met in 1666-7, endorsed his reforms, but deposed him from his Patriarchal Office because of his intemperance and arrogance.
A third major event which was to have a profound effect on the Russian Church, was the abolition of the Patriarchate by Tsar Peter I (the Great) in 1721. The Patriarch had died in 1700 and Peter, wishing no more Nikons, refused to allow the appointment of a successor. Accordingly, in 1721 he issued his celebrated Spiritual Regulations, and the Russian Church was placed under an uncanonical Synodal System, whereby a Synod of twelve members, drawn from the Bishops, Abbots and secular Clergy appointed by the Government ruled the Church. However, all meetings were attended by a government functionary, the Chief Procurator, representing the Tsar, and all decisions had to be approved by the Sovereign. At the same time monasticism was severely restricted and later in the Century more than half the monasteries were closed by Empress Catherine II (the Great 1762-96) and their lands confiscated.
This Synodal Period, which lasted until 1917, was a period of spiritual low for the Church, although there were a few bright spots. Missionary activity, always a strong feature of the Russian Church, expanded throughout Siberia and Central Asia, eventually reaching Alaska. Certain monasteries were revitalized, including the famous center of Valaam, and the spiritual traditions of Mt. Athos, especially popularized by Paisius Velichkovsky and his Philokalia, reached Russia, through the efforts of Metropolitan Gabriel of Moscow and his disciple, Nazarius, Abbot of Valaam. A special system of spiritual direction, eldership (or starchestvo) developed, especially popularized at the Optino Hermitage under the Elders Leonid, Macarius, Amvrosy and Joseph, and a few Saints shone during this time, especially St. Tikhon of Zadonsk ( 1783 commemorated August 13), a revitalizer of pastoral life, and St. Seraphim of Sarov ( 1833 commemorated January 2 and July 19).
Finally, in 1917, with the Fall of the Monarchy, the Patriarchate was re-established and Tikhon, Metropolitan of Moscow, was elected Patriarch by the All-Russian Council of that year. Sadly, however, the Church was soon engulfed in the fires of the Bolshevik Revolution of that year and the unprecedented persecutions which followed. The Russian Orthodox Church since 1917 has endured sufferings without parallel, contributing a new rank of Martyrs to the Church Triumphant, yet despite the severe decimation of her faithful, clergy, and institutions, she still remains a powerful spiritual and moral force in the Orthodox world, confirming that the Church of Christ is built upon a rock, for in the words of the Savior, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18).

Excerpt taken from "These Truths We Hold - The Holy Orthodox Church: Her Life and Teachings". Compiled and Edited by A Monk of St. Tikhon's Monastery. Copyright 1986 by the St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, South Canaan, Pennsylvania 18459.
To order a copy of "These Truths We Hold" visit the St. Tikhon's Orthodox Seminary Bookstore.

Κυριακή 27 Μαΐου 2012

Saint George Military Association pioneers catechetical book program for military personnel ALBUQUERQUE, NM


 [SGOMA/OCA]

St. George Orthodox Military Association
The Saint George Orthodox Military Association (SGOMA) has announced the inauguration of the Saint George Catechetical Program. Interested individuals can now support the troops and sailors of the Armed Forces with the gift of carefully selected Orthodox books. Notes the SGOMA website, “It has been a slow and long process but SGOMA has been developing a Catechetical Program for our military to teach our Orthodox Christians the Holy Faith in more detail…this is also a program for inquirers to use to learn the Holy Faith.”
In coordination with Light & Life Publishing, SGOMA has assembled two small “libraries” of books which can be donated through the Catechetical Program. The soldiers’ and sailors’ names have been compiled and approved by Saint George Orthodox Military Association, and SGOMA will be match each “library” to an appropriate recipient. Light & Life will then ship the books to wherever the military member may be serving, either in the United States or overseas.
The Level One Library includes:
  1. The Orthodox Church,
  2. Orthodox Catechism (4 volume set)
  3. A Beginners Guide to Prayer
  4. A Beginners Guide to Spirituality
  5. Am I saved? An Orthodox Interpretation
  6. Pocket Prayer Book
The Level Two Library includes:
  1. Achieving Your Potential In Christ
  2. The Apostolic Fathers
  3. Defeating Sin
  4. The Great Martyr George
  5. How To Read Your Bible
  6. Light Through Darkness
  7. Breaking The Chain of Addictions

St. Herman's and St. Tikhon's Seminaries to hold commencement exercises Memorial Day weekend SOUTH CANAAN, PA [OCA]



While commencement exercises at Saint Vladimir’s Seminary, Crestwood, NY, were held on Saturday, May 19, 2012 — see news release — graduates of Saint Tikhon’s Seminary here and Saint Herman’s Seminary, Kodiak, AK, will be honored over the Memorial Day weekend.

At Saint Tikhon’s Seminary, commencement exercises will be held on Saturday, May 26, at 1:00 p.m., in conjunction with the annual pilgrimage to Saint Tikhon’s Monastery.  The Hierarchical Divine Liturgy will be celebrated in the monastery church at 9:00 a.m.  His Grace, Bishop John of Worcester and New England of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Diocese of North America, will be the commencement speaker.  A banquet honoring the graduates will be held immediately after the ceremony at Saint Michael’s Center, East Jermyn, PA.

On Sunday, May 27, following the Hierarchical Divine Liturgy, commencement exercises for graduates of Saint Herman’s Seminary, Kodiak, AK, will be held at Saint Mary Parochial School.  His Eminence, Archbishop Benjamin of San Francisco and the West and Locum Tenens of the Diocese of Alaska, will recognize the graduates, Priest Michael Nicolai and Deacon Andrew Wassilie, and award Reader’s Certificates to those who completed the seminary’s two-year program of studies.  The keynote speaker will be Archpriest Stephan Heckman, rector of Transfiguration of Our Lord Church [Yukon Deanery], Pilot Station, AK.

Additional information and galleries will be posted on the OCA web site as they are received.

“American Orthodoxy” or “Orthodoxy in America”?

 Profiling the Next Generation of Eastern Christian Clergy in the USA By Alexey D. Krindach (Research associate at the Patriarch Athenagoras Orthodox Institute (Berkeley, CA) and faculty member at the Center of Geopolitical Studies of the Institute of Geography (Moscow, Russia): Akrindatch@aol.com, alkrin@online.ru) “In the Orthodox Church, the priest is expected primarily to be a priest” (Harakas 1980, p.348) I. Introduction This study continues my previous work on the general subject of “Eastern Christian Churches in American Public and Religious Life” (Krindatch 2002, 2003). The study’s major goal is to examine the profile of the next generation of American Eastern Orthodox clergy. The goal of this study is to explore the similarities and differences between present-day American Orthodox parish clergy and their successors--seminary students. Finally, given the significance of and many controversies about the growing presence of Western Christian converts in American Orthodox churches, this study addresses the ways and the extent to which seminarians who are Orthodox-born (or “cradle Orthodox”) differ from their fellow students who are converts to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. II Eastern Orthodox Churches in the American Religious Landscape: the Challenges of Traditionalism The important role of religion in American civic culture has been widely recognized since Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (1835). In the post World War II period, Russell Kirk has emphasized the “religious character of the United States” in his famous work The American Cause (1956, 2002), arguing that “whether one subscribes to this religious faith or not, indisputably this is the religious framework upon which American society is built. Christian morality is the cement of American life; and Christian concepts of natural law, natural rights, and necessary limitations to human ambitions all govern our politics and even economic our economic system” (Kirk 2002, p.30). More recently, since the 1980s, a new focus on civil society highlighted the “social” significance of religion in this country. It has become common, to consider religious participation as a gateway to other forms of civic engagement (Ammerman 1997; Wuthnow 1999), and as a major educator of civic skills for the lower classes and, in particular, the minorities. (Wald 1987, Verba 1995). The challenging question to consider is: “To what extent do the Eastern Christian Churches in the US fit this current model of religious participation?” To answer this question, at least partially, several features of American Eastern Christianiny should be mentioned which distinguish it clearly from the Catholicism and Protestantism. 1) The Orthodox Church regards herself as the “Mother Church” of Christianity - the undivided church of the first nine centuries. It has a notion of Christianity that is “given” and independent of changing social or cultural realities. In the Orthodox Church, the unconditional standards of faith and ecclesiastical functions transcend personal and worldly considerations. Strong adherence to a commonly held tradition, together with the network of established relations that creates the membership, are the chief means by which the Orthodox Church is perpetuated. These circumstances are basic to an understanding of any aspect of Orthodox Christianity, including: a) the notion of the role of the clergy, and b) the norms of parish life. In the first case (clergy’s role), the Eastern Orthodox Church emphasizes the importance of the office of the priest who, to a large extent, is socially set apart from the congregation for special sacramental and worship functions. That is the role of the priest itself which is more important than the individual in that role (Harakas 1980). In the second case (parish life), for many Orthodox priests to encourage diversity in membership, or to introduce novelty in ecclesial approach or ideas, is equal to challenging the very basis of unity and mutuality of the parish community. 2) The eucharistic and liturgical aspects of parochial (congregational) life have always been fundamental for Orthodox Christianity. In the context of American religious culture, however, they have become especially evident due to the very inhibited development of the social (non religious) aspects of life in the Eastern Orthodox parishes compared to the Roman Catholic and various Protestant Churches. For a long period of time the American Orthodox Churches were not concerned with the social involvement of their clergy. Accordingly, counseling, social outreach and mission, and the development of community services - which are considered an important part of the clergy’s role in America – have been subtly disregarded or even discouraged in many Orthodox parishes in America. According to the national “Ministry in America” study, the Orthodox Church family identifies most completely with the so-called “sacramental-liturgical model” (Harakas 1980). In this model, clergy are called to a singular focus on the transcendent and the holy: on leading sacramental worship, providing communion, etc. 3) The Orthodox Churches officially hold to a closed communion. This means that for Orthodox clergy, there is a clear line of demarcation between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christians, and an even greater separation between Orthodox Christianity and non-Christian religions. Socially, this does not involve total disengagement from or rejection of others. Yet sacramental relations with the non-Orthodox are strictly avoided, religiously mixed marriages are in many cases discouraged, and the ecumenical involvement of the Orthodox Churches in the USA operates primarily on an episcopal and denominational, but not on a local parish level. 4) The Orthodox Churches as institutions have been historically shaped either by societies where Eastern Christians formed culturally and politically dominant majorities (Byzantine Empire, Russia, Romania, Georgia, etc.), or in contrast, in countries where Orthodox Christianity has served as a unifying and protecting bond for the particular ethno-religious minorities existing within alien and, frequently oppressive cultural and religious environments (for example, Copts in Egypt; Orthodox Syrians in the Middle East). Accordingly, in the USA, the most unusual challenge for the Orthodox Churches is necessity to respond to a situation of cultural pluralism in combination with conditions of a “free religious market”, for which Eastern Christianity has no historical precedent. 5) The notion of “one nation – one people – one Church” has also been historically characteristic of Eastern Christianity. Accordingly, the various Orthodox Churches from the “Old World” organized their independent jurisdictions (denominations) in America with the specific purpose of ministering to the religious needs of the corresponding immigrant ethnic communities (Armenians, Greeks, Russians, Serbs, etc.) and, later, their descendants. In the not so distant past, a high priority has been assigned to the preservation of members’ ethnic heritage and identity in the parishes of the various American Orthodox Churches. Although American society is richly endowed with venues for cultural exchange and despite the fact that today a substantial proportion of their clergy and members are American-born, many Orthodox Churches in the USA are still markedly “ethnocentric” by nature (Krindatch 2003). Moreover, while various American Eastern Orthodox Churches share the same doctrine and they are in full sacramental communion with each other, these ethnically-based barriers separate them significantly. In other words, within American Orthodoxy, the “ethnic loyalty” prevails frequently over “Orthodox unity and solidarity.” 6) While many Orthodox parish priests are American-born, they, yet, can be seen as the bearers of ethnic identity and heritage in the Eastern Christian communities of the USA. For instance, in most American Orthodox Churches the proportion of clergy who were born in the USA is significantly higher than the number of priests who consider English their “mother” tongue or, whose primary identity is “simply American” (Table 1). Tab. 1 OCA GOA Rus Ukr Alb Rom Syr Proportion (%) of priests who were born in the USA 96 57 63 55 100 22 7 Proportion of priests (%) who consider English their mother tongue 96 26 50 42 82 19 7 Proportion of priests (%) whose primary identity is “I am simply American” 71 9 15 17 36 8 0 Abbreviations for various American Orthodox Churches: 1. OCA – Orthodox Church in America: Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania; 2. GOA – Greek Orthodox Archdiocese: Diocese of Pittsburgh; 3. Rus – Patriarchal parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in the USA; 4. Ukr – Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA; 5. Alb – Albanian Archdiocese of the Orthodox Church in America; 6. Rom – Romanian Episcopate of the Orthodox Church in America; 7. Syr – Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch in the USA. Source of data: OCA and GOA – a survey of the parish clergy completed by author in the spring 2004; Rus, Ukr, Alb, Rom, Syr – a survey of the parish clergy completed by author in the spring 2002, partly published in (Krindatch 2003). The strong adherence to tradition and the inter-Orthodox ethnically-based divisions have contributed significantly to the fact, that - as of now - there has been no cohesive strategy on the part of the Orthodox Churches for adaptation to the American cultural diversity and religious pluralism and to continuing secularization understood, according to Jose Casanova, as an increasing “functional differentiation and emancipation of the secular and religious spheres” (Casanova 1994). This lack of an articulated and unified Orthodox response has led to the internal fragmentation of Eastern Christianity in America, not only on the denominational level of the different Orthodox churches (jurisdictions), but also on the level of their individual parishes (Krindatch 2003; Papanikolaou 2003). Because of this growing parish-to-parish diversity, the role of the local Orthodox priests has become crucial for shaping the public image of Eastern Christianity in the USA. In other words, at the beginning of the third millennium, the actual church policies are being set not only by the national leadership of various American Orthodox churches, but also by the parish clergy to a greater extent than ever. Investigating the issue of “‘American Orthodoxy’ or ‘Orthodoxy in America’” requires response to the two major questions: 1) Can one speak about fundamental and lasting influences of American culture on the practice and self-understanding of Orthodox Churches in the USA (“American Orthodoxy”)? or 2) Are the Orthodox churches still an estranged component of the American religious landscape in spite of their long historic presence in the USA (“Orthodoxy in America”)? Within this broad problem-setting, this study addresses a more specific question: Will the next generation of Orthodox clergy conform with the centuries-long and time-sanctified Orthodox traditions, or will they, rather, adapt (at least partially) to the standards of church life that are characteristic of American mainstream Christianity?” III Procedures: The major research procedure was a survey of all students enrolled in priestly formation M.Div. programs at St. Vladimir (Crestwood, NY) and St. Tikhon (South Canaan, PA) Orthodox seminaries, and at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology (Brookline, MA). The proportion of completed and returned questionnaires was 65% in the case of St. Vladimir, 95% in the case of Holy Cross and 100% in the case of St. Tikhon seminaries (Tab. 2). Tab. 2 Seminaries: St. Tikhon’s’s St. Vladimir’s’s Holy Cross Location South Canaan, PA (Northeast Pennsylvania) Crestwood (New York, NY) Brookline (Boston, MA) Data of foundation 1937/38 1937/38 1937, in Pomfret, CT; Since 1946 – in current location. Church affiliation Orthodox Church in America (until 1970 – North American Metropolia of the Russian Orthodox Church) Orthodox Church in America (until 1970 – North American Metropolia of the Russian Orthodox Church) Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople) Accreditation by the Asso­ci­ation of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (ATS) Associate member, 1994; full accredited member , 2004. Associate member, 1966; full accredited member, 1973. Full accreditation before 1987 Major programs offered Master of Divinity, Diploma in Orthodox Theology (non degree), Extension Studies Program (informal, non degree) Master of Divinity, Master of Theology, Master of Arts, Doctor of Ministry. Master of Divinity, Master of Theological Studies, Master of Theology Total number of students: 1990 21 97 101 (in 1992) Total number of students: 2004 61 93 117 Number of students enrolled in M.Div. program: 1990 21 49 82 (in 1992) Number of students enrolled in M.Div. program: 2004 51 56 82 Number of M.Div. students partici­pating in this survey 51 (*) 37 50 (*) – in the case of St.Tikhon the survey has been completed among all (not only in M.Div. program) students The survey questionnaire included 34 questions divided in three major categories: A. Personal backgrounds of students. Where are future priests coming from? In what types of families (religiously, socially) have they been raised? What social, educational and religious “baggage” do they bring with them into the seminary? B. The students’ general notion of Eastern Orthodox Christianity in the USA. How do the students perceive the current overall situation of Eastern Christianity in the context of the wider American society? What is their vision of the future of the Orthodox Churches in this country? What are their notions of the Orthodox social outreach and religious mission in the USA? C. The students’ vision of various aspects of the daily life in the American Orthodox parishes. How do they relate the worship to actual life? What do they think about the social involvement of Orthodox parishes in the local communities where the parishes are situated? What are their attitudes towards various forms of ecumenical participation and cooperation on the local level? How will they deal with the various problems and issues associated with mixed (interfaith, inter-religious) marriages? The three Orthodox seminaries (all are accredited members of the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada) were established almost at the same time: in 1937-38. In the history of Eastern Christianity in the USA, it was a time when it became obvious that, for various reasons, American Orthodox churches cannot longer rely on a supply of “imported” clergy from overseas, and that US-born generations of Orthodox believers need clergy who are also raised, educated and ordained in the American social and cultural environments. Having been founded originally with the same prime purpose – to educate and to train priests for Eastern Orthodox churches in America – with the passage of time, the three schools have developed different public images and educational approaches. Holy Cross School of Theology is located in the southwestern suburbs of Boston metropolitan area. It is affiliated with the “Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America” (GOA) – the largest by membership and perhaps most established of all American Orthodox Churches. For a long time, Holy Cross has been a stronghold of traditional Hellenic culture of the Greek-American community. In 1967, in addition to the seminary, Hellenic College was established as a liberal arts educational institution, to serve as the seminary’s secular counterpart. St. Vladimir Orthodox Theological Seminary is located in the northern suburbs of the New York City metropolitan area. It is affiliated with the “Orthodox Church in America” (OCA) - the former North American Metropolia of the Russian Orthodox Church. St. Vladimir has always been “internationally, ecumenically and research” oriented. It is also known for the ecumenical involvement of the faculty members, and for several outstanding Orthodox scholars who have worked in the seminary (Fr. Georges Florovsky, Fr. John Meyendorff, Fr. Alexander Schmemann). Side by side with the educational functions, St. Vladimir serves as a base for the reputable publishing house “St. Vladimir Seminary Press,” which has produced hundreds of books and periodicals in Orthodox theology. Unlike Holy Cross and St. Vladimir, St. Tikhon Orthodox Theological Seminary (also affiliated with the Orthodox Church in America) is situated in a rather remote rural area of Northeast Pennsylvania. It is located on the territory of St. Tikhon Monastery – the oldest Orthodox monastic community in America (founded in 1905). The original concept of St. Tikhon seminary was to be, first and foremost, a “pastoral school.” Accordingly, St. Tikhon’s educational programs have always been oriented to the formation of clergy for practical work in Orthodox parishes, rather than as theologians or scholars of religion. Because of its close association with the monastic community, St. Tikhon attracts students who are especially devoted to the more traditional aspects of Orthodox worship and liturgical practices. Among the three seminaries, St. Tikhon has a reputation as the most conservative of these schools. By completion of the survey among students of all three Orthodox theological schools, we have hoped to reflect adequately the actual internal diversity of Orthodox Christianity in America. Among the questions which we attempted to examine were: Whether future Orthodox priests – current seminary students – can be seen as a homogenous group of people who have similar personal backgrounds, share the same values, demonstrate similar approaches to the various Church issues and the norms of parish life? Or, on the contrast, are they rather dissimilar among themselves? And, if “yes,” which issues, and to what extent, separate them from each other? In this context special attention has been paid to the differences between the Orthodox-born (“cradle Orthodox”) seminarians and the converts students – the former Roman Catholics and Protestants. Simultaneously with this students’ study the survey of the Orthodox priests serving in the parishes of the Diocese of Pittsburgh – which is a part of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (GOA) - and of the Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania - which is a part of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) - has also been completed. All items from the students questionnaires have been included into the clergy survey. Accordingly, this study aimed also at responding the following questions: Whether future Orthodox priests - the students participating in this survey - are similar or rather dissimilar to current parish clergy? How large is the “generation gap”? In which areas, and with regard to which issues, are the differences especially pronounced? IV. Major Findings (The text below presents selected and generalized results. A full study report is available upon request from the author). 1) The results of the survey revealed that the “old stereotypes” about various public images of the three major American Orthodox seminaries are still largely accurate. As measured by the church affiliation of the students, St. Vladimir is the most diverse of the three seminaries. Less than half of St. Vladimir students belong to the Orthodox Church in America, with which St. Vladimir seminary is affiliated. In other words, St. Vladimir serves as a major study facility for the clergy of the various American Eastern Christian Churches which do not have their own full-fledged educational institutions. In comparison with two other seminaries, the students at St. Vladimir demonstrate more liberal and modern approaches to the different aspects of Church life. They, for example, are more inclined to explore new ways of delivering Orthodox sermons (by using examples from the contemporary mass-media or personal stories or first-hand experiences), and to participate in ecumenical worship or in inter-Christian joint social service projects. They have more tolerant attitudes towards religiously mixed inter-Christian marriages (Orthodox with Roman Catholics or Protestants). In their evaluation of the various sources of authority in parish life the St. Vladimir seminarians have greater appreciation for “human reason and understanding” and lesser acceptance of the “guidance of the ruling bishop” as an unquestioned source of authority. The Holy Cross School of Theology remains by and large a very “Greek” institution. 86% of its students are members of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America. It is also in the Holy Cross seminary that ethnic culture and ethnic identity remain important for a much larger part of the students than in St. Tikhon or in St. Vladimir. For instance, while 90 % of the Holy Cross’ seminarians have been born in the USA, only 72 % of them consider English to be their first “Mother” language, and only 18 % of them say that their primary identity is “I am simply American.” In comparison with St. Vladimir and Holy Cross, the St. Tikhon students are most conservative in their approaches to various Church practices and issues. They are, for instance, rather reluctant to accept various forms of ecumenical relations with the non-Orthodox Christian Churches (and not only joint ecumenical worship, but also participation of the Orthodox churches in the joint inter-Christian social service projects and in the local councils of Christian churches). 43 % of St. Tikhon seminarians reject the idea of mixed inter-Christian marriages in comparison with 30 % of Holy Cross and 17% of St. Vladimir students. 84% of St. Tikhon seminarians demonstrate an unconditional obedience to the ruling bishop’s guidance (as compared to 57-60 % in case of St. Vladimir and Holy Cross), while only 22% of them consider “human reason and understanding” an important source of authority in the life of the Orthodox parishes (in comparison with 28 % of Holy Cross and 38 % of St. Vladimir students). In their assessment of the various ways of delivering Orthodox sermons, the St. Tikhon seminarians focus primarily on the “references to and detailed explanations of scriptures and doctrine,” but they largely ignore the possibility of using “examples from contemporary mass-media” or “personal stories and first hand experiences” in the sermons. 2) The new developments of the 1980s-90s have added some new features to the collective portraits of students in each seminary. While they are most traditional and conservative in their attitudes to the various norms of the daily Church life, the St. Tikhon seminarians are, at the same time, most optimistic about the future of the Orthodox Christianity in America. 80% of them predict the further growth in numbers and proportion of Orthodox Christians in the United States (in comparison with 54-56% of the St. Vladimir’s and Holy Cross students). Almost half of St. Tikhon seminarians believe in the imminent institutional independence of American Orthodox churches from the Mother Churches in the Old World or even in the formation of one united American Orthodox Church (only 19 % of Holy Cross and 30% of St. Vladimir students share this opinion). Finally, to a larger extent than students at St. Vladimir and, especially, at Holy Cross seminaries, the St. Tikhon seminarians foresee an increasing role of converts in American Orthodoxy: almost quarter of St. Tikhon students even think that the converts to Orthodoxy from the Roman Catholic and Protetstant Churches will be the major source of the further growth of Orthodox Christianity in America. In brief, St. Tikhon seminarians believe in bright prospect for Eastern Christianity and the Orthodox churches in America, which will yet be achieved by retaining norms of religious and social life that are most traditional for Orthodox Christianity. Quite differently from St. Tikhon, the St. Vladimir students associate the future of Eastern Christianity in the United States with acceptance and integration into the Orthodox churches the standards of religious life which are typical for the mainstream American Christianity. In comparison with St. Tikhon, the St. Vladimir students appear to be consistent proponents of the various forms of ecumenical involvement with non-Orthodox Christian Churches, of the introduction of new subjects and ways of delivering Orthodox sermon, etc. In other words, adaptation to the realities of American cultural and religious pluralism is seen by St. Vladimir students as a necessary condition for the success of the Orthodox Christian mission in America. Interestingly enough, although the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese is most established of all American Orthodox Churches, the Holy Cross students (who are mainly the members of GOA) are the most skeptical in their estimation of the current level of integration of the Orthodox churches into the wider American society. In comparison with St. Vladimir and, especially, St. Tikhon, a bigger proportion of Holy Cross students are of the view that “in spite of their long historical presence in the USA, the Orthodox churches are and will remain “strangers” to American society.” To a lesser degree than St. Vladimir and St. Tikhon seminarians, the Holy Cross students believe in the possibility of the institutional independence of the various Orthodox Churches in the USA from their headquarters in the Old World, and in the formation of one unified American Orthodox Church. Finally, in comparison with the two other seminaries, the Holy Cross students identify more strongly with the model in which the “Orthodox Church is for Orthodox-born people.” However, this traditional notion of Orthodox Christianity in America does not exclude rather tolerant attitudes of the Holy Cross students to various innovations in the parish life. In fact, in most cases, Holy Cross seminarians share the liberal views expressed by St. Vladimir students with regard to the questions of ecumenical involvement and of the new subjects and ways of delivering sermons and of mixed inter-Christian marriages, etc. 3) In the 1980-90s, it has become common to speak about an increasing number of converts – the former Roman Catholics and Protestants - in the American Orthodox churches. Our survey has confirmed this thesis: about half of the students in the three major American Orthodox theological schools are converts. Although their proportion varies from seminary to seminary, even at Holy Cross - a stronghold of Hellenic Orthodox culture - converts comprise 25% of the student body. As for St. Tikhon and St. Vladimir seminaries, the converts constitute an absolute majority of their students. This is an entirely new situation that has never before occurred in the history of Eastern Christianity in America. Given the theological and liturgical similarities between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches, one can expect that Catholics would comprise most significant group among the convert students. According to several studies completed in the past by the Orthodox scholars this was the case in the 1970s and early 1980s [Loft, 1984]. Today, however, at St. Vladimir and St. Tikhon seminaries, more than three quarters of converts are former Protestants - a proportion which is higher than that of Protestants in the overall Christian population in the United States. In the Holy Cross seminary, only 8% of all converts are former Catholics (Tab. 3). Tab. 3 What was your religion/Church before you have become an Orthodox Christian (% of respondents)? St. Tikhon St.Vladimir Holy Cross Total I have been always Orthodox Christian 37 43 74 52 I was Roman Catholic 14 11 2 9 I was moderate or liberal Protestant 27 19 14 20 I was Evangelical Protestant 16 24 8 15 I was agnostic (no religion) 6 3 2 4 The rapidly-growing presence of former Catholics and Protestants in American Orthodox seminaries is important in light of the ongoing discussion about “who are the converts to Orthodoxy in the United States?” In this discourse, one group of Orthodox scholars provides various arguments for what makes Orthodox Christianity and the Orthodox Church attractive for increasing numbers of Americans. Representatives of the other group, however, argue that converts to Eastern Christianity are predominantly the persons who - for various reasons - no longer identify themselves with the mainstream of American society. They emphasize the fact that for most American converts, the Orthodox Church is seen as the last “security blanket,” according to the definition of Fr. Emmanuel Clapsis, Holy Cross seminary’s dean. Hence, depending on which of two approaches is more accurate, the growing proportion of converts among future Orthodox clergy will lead either to the “Americanization” of the Orthodox churches and to their fuller integration with the wider American society, or, to the contrary, it will contribute to the further separation of Orthodoxy from mainstream Christianity in the United States. For the internal lives of the American Orthodox Churches the growing presence of converts among future Orthodox priests also raises numerous challenging questions. Is this a short-lived phenomenon, or will this be a prevailing trend in the long-term perspective? Does this situation mean that in 10-15 years the number of converts among parish clergy will be equal to the number of “cradle-Orthodox” priests? Or, perhaps, will the converts even dominate? To what extent does the widespread notion that Catholic and Protestant converts tend to be “more Orthodox” than people born and raised in the Orthodox religious tradition reflect the truth? How will the priests who are the converts organize the lives of their parishes, which will be, perhaps, still mainly populated by the Orthodox-born parishioners? 4) The differences in the personal backgrounds of the Orthodox-born seminarians and their fellow convert students (such as the level of their secular education, occupations of parents, incomes of the parental households, strictness of religious upbringing, etc.) are minor. The major dividing line in this context is not between the Orthodox-born and the converts, but between former Evangelical Protestants and all other students. In comparison with cradle-Orthodox or former Catholics or former Moderate Protestants, the converts from Evangelical Protestant churches tend to come from much wealthier families, and their fathers more likely belonged to the business community. They also received a higher level of secular education before enrollment into the Orthodox seminary. But it is the strictness of the religious upbringing provided by parents which especially separates former Evangelical Protestants from the other seminary students. Indeed, almost all converts from the Evangelical Protestant churches were brought up in families where parents “were active in the church and we attended church regularly,” but only 75% of the Orthodox-born and former Catholics, and less than two thirds of the former Moderate Protestants, were raised in such pious homes. Finally, the former Evangelical Protestants are more definite in their plans to be ordained and to serve as priests after graduation from the seminary than all other students are. 5) Orthodox-born and convert students expressed very similar views on what must be emphasized in worship practices in an Orthodox parish. By the assessment of various possible themes for their future sermons, convert students tend to conform entirely to their Orthodox-born colleagues. Most traditional Orthodox Church sermon topics - “explanation of Gospel and Scripture,” “personal spiritual growth,” and “personal salvation,” - were chosen by all groups of students as by far the most important. On the contrary, not only the cradle-Orthodox, but also the converts, demonstrated reluctance to address in the church the more “utilitarian” subjects, such as “stewardship of time and money for church,” or “social and political issues in your parish area,” or “social and political issues in the USA.” As to students’ opinion on how to reach out and attract new members, the survey has shown that convert students are again more willing to accept the ways which have always been traditional for the Orthodox parishes (cultural events and popular programs, efforts to identify new Orthodox immigrants who recently settled in the area), rather than use methods which are more typical for American Western Christian churches (advertisements in local newspapers, direct mail to the homes of all area residents). 6) The Orthodox-born and convert students also show remarkable similarities in their vision of the religious mission and social outreach of Orthodox churches in the United States. A vast majority of seminarians (71-92%) feel that “American Orthodox churches should try to be as active in their missionary efforts and social work as other Christian churches.” Only an insignificant minority of cradle-Orthodox (10 %) are of the view that the religious mission of the Orthodox churches in the United States will be unsuccessful because “the Eastern Orthodox religious tradition has little appeal to American society at large.” An even smaller group of Orthodox-born students (7%) believes that Orthodox churches should serve primarily the “needs of their own flocks,” or that “active Church-based social work has never been a part of the Eastern Christian Orthodox religious tradition.” In other words, the forthcoming generation of Orthodox clergy - both Orthodox-born and convert students - appears to be eager to change the current situation, in which American Orthodox parishes are in general much less involved in social outreach and mission work than Catholic parishes and Protestant congregations (Tab. 4). Tab. 4 Most Christian Churches in America pay great attention both to the active missionary work and to various Church-based social, educational, charity programs. What must be the position of the American Orthodox Churches with regard to these type of activities (% of respondents)? Cradle Orthodox Former Roman Catholics Former Moderate Protest. Former Evangel. Protest. The American Orthodox Churches should try to be as active in their missionary efforts and in social work as other Christian Churches. 71 92 82 76 The American Orthodox Churches should definitely expand their social programs and to make them available for all Americans, and not just for their members. But there is little chance of success in their missionary work, because the Eastern Orthodox religious tradition has little appeal to the American society at large. 10 0 11 5 The American Orthodox Churches historically have been established for the purpose of serving the needs of their “own flocks”. This goal should remain a priority in the future. Their social programs must be oriented first of all toward their existing members. 6 0 4 0 An active Church-based social work has been never a part of the Eastern Orthodox Christian religious tradition. The primary goal of the American Orthodox Churches is to provide pastoral/spiritual care to their faithful. 1 0 0 0 Don’t know, difficult to answer, any other answer 12 8 3 19 7) Distinctions between Orthodox-born and convert students are much more pronounced in how they perceive the current situation of, and what future they predict for the Eastern Christian churches in America. In their assessment of the present situation of Orthodox Christianity in the United States, a prevailing majority (57-64 %) of former Catholics and Protestants think that “While most of their members are socially integrated into American society, the Orthodox Churches as institutions are still perceived by the vast majority of Americans as ‘immigrant communities’.” On this issue, Orthodox-born students have less agreement among themselves. The share of the seminarians who espouse a pessimistic view that “In spite of their long historical presence in the United States, the Orthodox churches still are and will remain ‘strangers’ to American society” is essentially higher among the cradle-Orthodox (28 %) than among former Catholics (17 %) or Moderate (22 %) or Evangelical (14 %) Protestants (Tab. 5). Tab. 5 How would you define the overall current situation of various Orthodox Churches in USA in the context of the American “religious establishment” and in the wider American society in general (% of respondents)? Cradle Orthodox Former Roman Catholics Former Moder. Protest. Former Evangel. Protest. In spite of their long historical presence in USA, the Orthodox Churches still are and will remain “strangers” to American society 28 17 22 14 While most of their members are socially integrated into American society, the Orthodox Churches as institutions are still perceived by the vast majority of Americans as “immigrant communities”. 46 58 64 57 Although the Orthodox Christians and the Orthodox Churches are religious minority in America, they have become a fully integral part of American society 10 0 0 5 Don’t know, difficult to say, any other answer 16 25 14 24 The converts are more optimistic than the Orthodox-born in their belief that the Eastern Orthodox churches in the United States will become independent from the Mother Churches overseas or that they will even form a united American Orthodox Church in the foreseeable future. This is an opinion which is shared by 33 % of former Moderate Protestants, 41 % of former Catholics and 43 % of former Evangelical Christians in comparison to only 17 % of the Orthodox-born seminarians who hold this position. On the contrary, only among Orthodox-born there is a relatively significant group of students (13 %) who insist that keeping linkages with the Mother Churches in the Old World is vitally important for the American Orthodox churches, in order to resist the pressure of a dominant Protestant culture (Tab. 6). Tab. 6 Today the Orthodox Christianity in America consists of numerous Church’ “jurisdictions” and most of them are still linked and subordinated to the “Mother” Churches in the “Old World”. In your personal opinion, are any changes in this situation desirable and realistic during next 10-20 years (% of respondents)? Cradle Orthodox Former Roman Catholics Former Moderate Protest. Former Evangel. Protest. The Orthodox Christians in America are under permanent “pressure” of dominating Protestant culture. Therefore, it is important for the American Eastern Orthodox Churches to keep their administrative and spiritual linkages with Mother Churches overseas. This will help greatly to resist the influence of the Protestant culture and to preserve our identity 13 0 0 5 I don’t think that any significant changes will happen during the next 10-20 years. However, I personally would like to see the American Orthodox Churches more independent from the Mother Churches overseas and more unified among themselves. 24 17 33 24 The situation will remain basically the same, but there will be a much higher level of practical co-operation and mutual support among the various American Eastern Orthodox Churches either in the framework of SCOBA or by means of any other all-American inter-Orthodox organization. 23 17 11 19 The Eastern Orthodox Christianity in America will remain split into numerous “jurisdictions”, but one by one they will become independent from the Mother Churches in the Old World, similar to the “Orthodox Church in America” – the former Russian Metropolia. 7 8 0 24 It is quite possible that in the next 10-20 years the American Orthodox jurisdictions will not only become independent from the Mother Churches in the Old World, but they also will find a way to form a unified American Eastern Orthodox Church. 17 33 33 19 I don’t know, it is difficult to predict, any other answer 16 25 22 9 Finally, the former Protestants are also more enthusiastic about the continuing influx of American converts into the American Orthodox churches. For instance, 29 % of former Evangelical Protestants and 43 % of former Moderate Protestants believe that the future development of Eastern Christianity in America will depend primarily on converts from the non-Orthodox Christian churches as compared to none of the former Roman Catholics, and only 7 % of the Orthodox-born. 8) The most clear distinctions between cradle-Orthodox seminarians and the students who come from Catholic and Protestant families are, however, in their visions of various Orthodox church policies and regulations. This survey has largely confirmed the widespread notion that Protestant and Catholic converts tend to be “more Orthodox” than persons who were born and raised in the Orthodox Church. Indeed, former Protestant and Catholic convert students demonstrated more conservative and traditionalist attitudes towards such issues as sources of authority in parish life, ecumenical worship, religiously mixed marriages, etc. While the convert students are more willing than the Orthodox-born to accept the unquestionable authority of the ruling bishop, a greater proportion of the cradle-Orthodox seminarians than of the former Catholics and Protestants have expressed the view that “human reason and understanding” are also very important sources of authority in parish life (Tab. 7A and 7B). Tab 7 How important must be the following sources of authority in the worship and daily life of the American Orthodox parishes (% of respondents): A. Guidance of the ruling Bishop Cradle Orthodox Former Roman Catholics Former Moderate Protestants Former Evangelical Protestants Very important 63 75 71 75 Somewhat important 29 25 25 25 Little important 8 0 4 0 B. Human reason and understanding Cradle Orthodox Former Roman Catholics Former Moderate Protestants Former Evangel. Protest. Very important 33 25 18 25 Somewhat important 56 50 64 55 Little important 11 25 18 20 The idea of the “joint ecumenical prayer” - something which is very common for the mainstream Protestant Christianity in this country - has been rejected by the former Protestant students (especially former Evangelical Christians) to a much larger degree than by the cradle-Orthodox and former Catholic seminarians. Tab. 8 What is your personal opinion about appropriateness of joint ecumenical prayer/services of the Orthodox and the other Christian Churches in America (% of respondents): Cradle Orthodox Former Roman Catholics Former Moderate Protestants Former Evangel. Protest. This is very important and desirable 24 33 7 9 This is possible, but not really important 30 34 39 24 This must be avoided at all costs 46 33 54 67 The relative “liberalism” of the Orthodox-born students, and more conservative attitudes of convert seminarians are especially apparent in their different approaches to the inter-Christian (Orthodox - non-Orthodox) marriages. Only one fifth of Orthodox-born students hold the position that the parish priest must either “not give his blessing for such a marriage,” or that he “should try to discourage this marriage to the extent possible.” In the case of converts, however, more than a third of former Catholics and Moderate Protestants, and more than half of former Evangelical Christians have expressed their disapproval of inter-Christian marriages (Tab. 9). Tab. 9 Various Orthodox Churches in America demonstrate de-facto various policies/practices with regard to the issue of the inter-Christian “Orthodox – Non-Orthodox” marriages. What in your personal opinion should be the position of the Orthodox priest with regard to such “mixed” marriages (Orthodox with Protestant or Catholic)? Please, select one answer only which seems most appropriate (% of respondents). Cradle Orthodox Former Roman Catholics Former Moder. Protest. Former Evang. Protest. The parish’s priest must not give his blessing for such a marriage to a member of his parish unless the other party first converts to the Eastern Orthodox Church. 8 0 7 19 The parish’s priest should try to discourage this marriage to the extent possible, but if the efforts to discourage are unsuccessful he should give his blessing. 13 34 29 33 There shouldn’t be problem with this situation, although the “Non-Orthodox” party should be encouraged to join the Orthodox Church in the future. 53 8 39 33 There shouldn’t be any problem with such mixed marriages in American Orthodox parishes, because they are very common in American society in general. 3 8 0 0 The situation can vary from place to place. 8 17 11 5 Difficult to say or don’t like to answer this question. 15 33 15 10 9) What distinguishes clearly current clergy of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (GOA) and of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) from their successors - today’s GOA and OCA seminary students - are the very different geographic origins (in case of the GOA) and religious “roots” (in case of the OCA) of “fathers” and “sons.” Indeed, about half GOA priests are immigrants from overseas, but almost all seminary students - the members of the GOA - are US-born. At the same time, a dominant majority of both present GOA clergy (91 %) and GOA seminary students (70 %) have been raised by Orthodox parents and in the Orthodox Church. One also should notice that GOA “fathers” and “sons” share in common a rather strong awareness of their ethnic roots. For example, both among GOA clergy and among GOA seminarians there exists a significant difference between the proportion of persons born in America and the share of those who consider English their first Mother language. Similarly, for both GOA clergy and GOA students the fact of birth in America does not imply necessarily the feeling of being “simply American” (Tab. 10) Tab. 10 GOA: clergy GOA: students OCA: clergy OCA: students % of persons who were born in North America 57 89 96 86 % of persons who’s Mother language is English 26 72 96 85 % of persons who’s primary identity is “simply American” 9 24 71 55 On the contrary, in the case of the OCA, both the “fathers” and the “sons” are mainly US-born persons who consider English their Mother-tongue. Also, among OCA clergy and OCA students, the proportion of America-born persons correspond to a much greater degree with the share of those who identified themselves as “simply American.” At the same time, the very distinct religious upbringing divide two generations of the OCA clergy rather strongly. While three out of four current OCA priests (72%) are cradle-Orthodox, two out of three OCA seminary students (66 %) are converts to Orthodoxy from the Roman Catholic and the Protestant churches (Tab. 11). Tab. 11 What was your religion/Church before you have become an Orthodox Christian? GOA: clergy GOA: students OCA: clergy OCA: Students I have been always Eastern Orthodox Christian 92 74 72 34 I was Roman Catholic 4 2 14 14 I was moderate or liberal Protestant 0 13 7 26 I was Evangelical Protestant 4 11 7 22 I was agnostic (no religion) 0 0 0 4 10) Two Orthodox Churches involved in this study – the “Orthodox Church in America” (OCA) and the “Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America” (GOA) – are historically the most established and by far the largest of all American Eastern Christian Churches. The comparative analysis of their current parish clergy and their seminary students has shown: today, GOA and OCA demonstrate a very different pattern of a “generation-to-generation” transition. As noticed, the GOA is still to an essential degree an ethnically based “Greek” Church. At the same time, it continues to experience an increasing “Americanization” – the process which is based on the gradual replacement of the older immigrant clergy from Greece, Turkey and the Middle East by the US-born next generation of priests. It should be pointed out, however: this “Americanization” trend develops primarily on the basis of GOA internal demographic potential. Indeed, three out of four GOA seminary students are Orthodox-born and two out of three maintain their ethnic identity and an awareness of their Greek ancestry. In the case of the OCA, today’s clergy have been mainly born in the USA and they consider themselves “simply Americans.” It appears, however, that in the near future, OCA priesthood will undergo two rather different (if not contradictory) developments. On the one hand, one can predict a certain return of the OCA to its original Slavic ethnic roots and character, because of the modestly growing proportion of new immigrants from Eastern Europe among future priests – present seminary students (new immigrants constitute 14 % of OCA seminarians in comparison with only 4% of current clergy). On the other hand, converts from the Roman Catholic and various Protestant Churches constitute two thirds of the OCA seminarians. Accordingly, the converts may eventually form a majority of the OCA clergy, if this phenomenon (the dominance of converts among the OCA seminary students) becomes a steady and long lasting tendency. 11) In spite of these pronounced differences in origins between the current Orthodox priests and today’s seminary students, the latter remain basically loyal to the previously mentioned “sacramental-liturgical model” of life in the American Orthodox parishes. They assign, for example, much lesser importance, to the social practices (“being responsible member of the local community,” “donating time for social and charity work,” “being a good citizen”) than to the religious functions of a parish (“personal daily prayer,” “regular reading of Bible,” “regular receiving of the sacraments). A majority of GOA and OCA students are also reluctant to “blend” worldly issues and subjects into their sermons (such as “social and political issues in the area of a parish,” “social and political issues in the USA”), and they focus primarily on the most traditional - for the Orthodox Church - topics of sermons: explanation of the Scriptures, and themes of personal spiritual growth and salvation (Tab. 12). Tab. 12 Which of the following should be the most important and frequent topics of sermons in Orthodox parishes in America (% of respondents which have indicated the subjects below as “important”)? GOA clergy GOA students OCA clergy OCA students Explanation of Gospel and Scripture 86 83 93 94 Personal spiritual growth 91 65 89 87 Personal Salvation 82 43 57 69 Social and political issues in your parish area 14 11 0 7 Social and political issues in the USA 14 6 0 4 Hence, while there are, indeed, some significant distinctions between the “fathers” and the “sons,” both generations reject largely the idea to use the Church space for addressing various social non-religious issues. The data in the table below demonstrate that in this context the Orthodox Churches in the USA are and, perhaps, will remain very different from the American mainstream Protestant Christianity. Tab. 13 How often does your sermon focus on social action and social justice (% of respondents) (*): 1. U.S. Total 2. Liber. Prot. 3. Mod. Prot. 4. Evan. Prot. 5. Rus. Orth. 6. Ukr. Orth. 7. Alb. Orth. 8. Rom. Orth. 9. Alsk. Orth. 10. Syr. Orth. 11. GOA 12. GOA stud 13. OCA 14. OCA stud Always/often: - in your local area - in the USA in general 29 35 28 16 5 8 0 0 5 0 14 11 0 7 5 5 0 3 0 14 14 6 0 4 Seldom/never: - in your local area - in the USA in general 25 14 20 35 70 63 73 69 84 54 54 n/a 71 n/a 75 58 54 61 79 50 43 n/a 68 n/a Columns 1-4: - the data from the national “Faith Communities Today” study (www.fact.hartsem.edu) 1 – USA Christian churches all together; 2 – Liberal Protestant denominations; 3 – Moderate Protestant denominations; 4 – Evangelical Protestant denominations. Columns 5-10: - the data of the national survey of the clergy of six Orthodox jurisdictions completed by author in spring of 2002 (the selected results are available at www.hirr.hartsem.edu/research/research_orthodoxindex.html) 5 – Patriarchal parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church; 6 - Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA; 7 – Albanian Diocese of the Orthodox Church in America; 8 – Romanian Episcopate of the Orthodox Church in America; 9 – Diocese of Alaska of the Orthodox Church in America; 10 – Syrian Orthodox Church of the Antioch. Columns 11-14: - the data from author’s surveys completed in spring of 2004. 11 – clergy of Greek Orthodox Archdiocese; 12 – seminary students of Greek Orthodox Archdiocese; 13 – clergy of Orthodox Church in America; 14 – seminary students of Orthodox Church in America. (*) - this question was asked as one question in the survey of the FACT study (columns 1-4: “How often does the sermon in your worship focus on social action and social justice?”), but it was divided in two questions in author’s surveys (columns 5-14: “How often does your sermon focus on social issues in the area of your parish?” and “...on social issues in the USA in generally?”) n/a – in the students survey the question was worded as “Which of the following should be the most important and frequent topics of sermons in American Orthodox parishes?” Therefore the data in the table show the proportion of students who selected the subject as “important,” but in the students’ survey there was no provision for choosing between “often” and “seldom.” 12) The investigation of student and clergy opinions on the difficult issue of inter-Christian (Orthodox with Catholics or Protestants) marriages in American Orthodox parishes revealed an intriguing fact: the current priests demonstrate more tolerant attitudes towards mixed couples than the generation of “sons” – the GOA and OCA seminarians. Two out of three current GOA and OCA clergy hold a liberal position, which is yet within church guidelines: “I see no problem with this situation, although I will encourage the “Non-Orthodox” party to join the Orthodox Church in the future. Also, I will insist that the wedding ceremony must be in the Orthodox Church,” but only a minority (31-48%) of the seminarians share the same view. Furthermore, one out of ten of GOA and OCA priests is willing to accept inter-Christian marriages in his parish as a matter of fact and unconditionally: “I see no any problem with mixed marriages in my parish, because they are very common in American society in general. I will not insist on the wedding ceremony in the Orthodox Church.” This liberal position is virtually non-existent among the GOA and OCA students. On the contrary, only among seminarians does there exist a rather conservative group which simply denies the possibility of inter-Christian marriages by saying “I will not give my blessing for such a marriage to a member of my parish unless the other party first converts to Orthodoxy” (Tab. 14). Tab. 14 Various Orthodox Churches in America have various policies with regard to the inter-Christian “Orthodox – Non-Orthodox” marriages. What is your personal position with regard to such mixed marriages? GOA clergy GOA stud. OCA clergy OCA-stud. I will not give my blessing for such a marriage to a member of my parish unless the other party first converts to Orthodoxy 0 13 0 13 I will try to discourage this marriage to the extent possible, but if the efforts to discourage are unsuccessful I will give my blessing. Also, I will insist that the wedding ceremony must be in the Orthodox Church 26 20 18 22 I see no problem with this situation, although I will encourage the “Non-Orthodox” party to join the Orthodox Church in the future. Also, I will insist that the wedding ceremony must be in the Orthodox Church. 65 48 68 31 I see no any problem with the such mixed marriages in my parish, because they are very common in American society in general. I will not insist on the wedding ceremony in the Orthodox Church 9 0 11 4 Other answer (this variant of answer was included only in the surveys of current priests) 0 N/A 3 N/A The situation can vary from place to place (this variant of answer was included only in the surveys of students) N/A 4 N/A 12 Difficult to say or don’t like to answer this question (this variant of answer was included only in the surveys of students) N/A 15 N/A 18 This phenomenon - liberalism of “fathers” and conservatism of “sons” in approaching the question of the inter-Christian couples - requires further examination and explanation “why?” It cannot be ascribed simply to the fact that there are more converts (who are inclined to reject religiously mixed marriages) among the “sons” than among the “fathers,” because both the OCA students (who are predominantly converts) and the GOA seminarians (who are mainly cradle Orthodox) expressed very similar opinions on this issue. Hence, does conservatism of “sons” reflect some general trend in the wider American society? Or does liberalism of “fathers” results from their common sense and from their professional experiences of the actual work in the parishes? 13) A feature which divides essentially all American Christian churches and serves as an important criteria in making a decision on “which church to belong to” is the strictness of internal rules and regulations within the congregation or parish. The national “Faith Communities Today” study has shown that the proportion of congregations/parishes where there are “clear expectations for the members that are strictly enforced” vary significantly between the Roman Catholic, and the Liberal, Moderate and Evangelical Protestant Churches (Tab. 15). Tab. 15 % of Protestant ministers and Catholic priests who say that: U.S. Christian Churches Total Roman Catholic Church Liberal Protestant Denominations Moderate Protestant denominations Evangelical Protestant denominations “Our congregation has clear expectations for the members that are strictly enforced” 9 17 4 4 12 Source of data: “Faith Communities Today” national study completed by Hartford Institute for Religion Research. The results available at www.fact.hartsem.edu My earlier study of six minor Orthodox jurisdictions in America as well as the recent survey of the GOA and OCA parish clergy discovered that in the overall picture the American Orthodox churches have a higher level of internal requirements for their members than is the case of their Western Christian counterparts (Tab. 16). Tab. 16 % of parish clergy who say that Rus. Orth. Ukr. Orth. Alb. Orth. Rom. Orth. Alsk. Orth. Syr. Orth. GOA OCA “Our parish has clear expectations for members that are strictly enforced” 42 15 36 31 21 21 26 22 Source of data: a national survey of the parish of the six American Orthodox churches completed by Alexey D. Krindatch in spring of 2002. The selected results are available at http://www.hirr.hartsem.edu/research/research_orthodoxindex.html Tab. 17 % of seminary students who believe: St. Tikhon St.Vladimir Holy Cross The Orthodox parish should have clear expectations of its members that must be strictly enforced. 12 5 12 14) This study aimed also at examining the question “What type of differences in American Orthodox Churches are more pronounced: those which are based on Church-to-Church differentiation or those which result from generation-to-generation distinctions?” In other words, do the attitudes and approaches, which are shared in common by the next US-born generation of the Orthodox clergy – current seminary students, prevail over “loyalties” to their own church’s traditions (either “Greek Archdiocese” or “Orthodox Church in America”) or rather vice versa? We have found, that some issues unify “fathers” and “sons” within each Church (and separate GOA from OCA), while the others, on the contrary, serve mainly as divisive lines between two generations. The first tendency, for instance, has been exemplified by the much larger importance of ethnic identity that both GOA students and clergy share in common, or by their greater devotion to the ecumenical involvement (in comparison with OCA seminarians and priests), or by the greater keenness of OCA clergy and students on the idea of the independence of American Orthodoxy from the Mother Churches overseas. At the same time, for example, the approaches to inter-Christian couples (surprisingly greater tolerance of “fathers” in comparison with “sons”) or the issue of the strictness of internal regulations in an Orthodox parish (lower level of expectations demonstrated by the “sons”) evidence the existence of generation-to-generation distinctions which are as significant as the current differences between the clergy of various American Orthodox Churches. V. Conclusions The answer on the very question raised in this study - “American Orthodoxy” or “Orthodoxy in America” – is simple: both, “American Orthodoxy” and “Orthodoxy in America.” In other words, the proponents of the fuller integration of the Orthodox Churches with the mainstream American religious culture and, on the contrary, the advocates of the immutability of the Orthodox Christianity, who believe in the independence of the Orthodox religious and social practices from the specific conditions of American society are equally present in the generation of “fathers” (current parochial priests) and among the “sons” (today’s seminary students). There is also no reason to predict an “Americanization” of the Orthodox churches in the United States because of an increasing presence of converts – the former Catholics and Protestants - among the future Orthodox parish clergy. As seen from the survey’s data, not only do the convert seminarians implicitly accept Orthodox traditions and worship practices, but, in many instances, they demonstrate more traditional and conservative approaches to the various norms of Church life than cradle-Orthodox students. The results of the study suggest that the diversity in approaches to the various church policies and issues demonstrated by today’s parish clergy will be augmented in the future by the differences between generations of “fathers” and “sons,” as well as by the disagreements on many questions which divide the “sons” - the seminary students - themselves. The increasing presence of former Roman Catholics and Protestants among the future Orthodox priests also contributes significantly to the internal divisions within American Orthodoxy. Hence, the process of internal fragmentation of Eastern Christianity in America which was mentioned on the first pages of this report appears to be a steady trend which will most likely gather its strength in the near future. References: Ammerman, N. 1997. Organized religion in a voluntaristic society. In “Sociology of Religion”, 58:203-215. Casanova, J. 1994. Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. P.19 Harakas, S. 1980. Orthodox Church. In “Ministry in America. A Report and Analysis, Based on an In-Depth Survey of 47 Denominations in the United States and Canada.” Ed. by D.Schuller and M.Strommen. San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishers. Jones, D., Doty S., at al, Eds. 2002. Religious Congregations and Membership in the United States 2000. Nashville, Tennesee: Glenmary Research Center. Kirk, R. 2002 (3rd edition). The American cause. Wilmington, Delaware: ISI books. Krindatch, A. D. 2002. Orthodox (Eastern Christian) Churches in the United States at the beginning of a new millennium: Questions of nature, identity and mission. In “Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion”, 41(3):533-563. Krindatch, A.D. 2003. Eastern Christianity in North American Religious Landscape: Ethnic Traditionalism versus Civic Involvement and Social Transformations. Published at web-site of Hartford Institute for Religion Research at: http://www.hirr.hartsem.edu/research/research_orthodoxindex.html Loft, S. 1984. A report on a survey of converts: very recent converts (1978-1983). The Orthodox Church in America: Sysosset, New York, 1984. Papanikolaou, A. 2003. “The One Becomes Many: Orthodox Christianity and American Pluralism”. A paper presented at the workshop “Orthodox Christianity in American Public Life: The Challenges and Opportunities of Religious Pluralism in the 21st Century.” Institute on Religion and World Affairs, Boston University, 13 December 2003. Verba, S. 1995. Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wald, K. D. 1987. Religion and politics in the United States. New York: St.Martin’s Press. Wuthnow, R. 1999. Mobilizing civic engagement: The changing impact of religious involvement. In “Civic engagement in American democracy”, ed. by T.Skocpol, pp.331-363. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.