www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Russian Church snipes at Patriarch

If beauty of worship is to be the standard, then will not that make Orthodoxy the true, or, at least, the better Church? Orthodoxy has always struck me as having a deeper liturgical sense than Catholicism, either Eastern or Western.

The fact that I remain a Catholic is because I think that, for all of its liturgical splendor and monastic seriousness, the Orthodox Church pales beside the coherence and missionary spirit of Catholicism.

However, if indeed liturgical beauty and fidelity to the monastic traditions of the Fathers are the signs of truth, believe me, I'll gladly be Orthodox.

I have always been deeply troubled by this seeming disjunct in Orthodoxy, the disjunct between magnificent worship -- a worship that, I believe, surpasses even the Tridentine Rite -- and monastic intensity, on one hand, and Orthodoxy's seeming proneness to uncharitableness and immobility, on the other. I do not mean to say that ALL the Orthodox are uncharitable, however, the actions of the Orthodox hierarchy can seem extraordinarily mean-spirited at times. And the lack of missionary impulse seems like a scandal, although I do acknowledge that imperial Russia in the 19th century had a strong missionary impulse.

???



yes . . .



Some folks in the Orthodox Church are jerks and sinners; some are friendly and saints; most are somewhere in-between; it's the same as anywhere else.

As for Orthodoxy's "immobility," I'm not sure what you are referring to. However, the Orthodox Church is slow to change. That is deliberate in order to preserve the wisdom and proven traditions from the past.



That's true sometimes.

It's also sometimes true in other churches and religions.

I would suggest, my friend, that we all refrain from making sweeping statements about entire religions and their leadership. After all, other religions' leaders have also been "extraordinarily mean-spirited at times" -- as has been the subject of many threads of discussion at this Forum already.

As for the Russian Orthodox Church's clergy: Right now, the Russian people (including the Russian Church) are trying to exert themselves after a very trying and exhausting century. In some ways, their exertions are good; in others ways, they are bad; and at other times, they are just ordinary.



Let's broaden and increase your acknowledgement of Orthodoxy's missionary achievements. For example, The Orthodox Church successfully evangelized the Eastern Roman Empire: Greece, the Balkan Penninsula, Anatolia, Syria, Egypt. Then, when the Slavic people conquered Eastern Europe, Orthodoxy converted them too: Bulgaria, much of the rest of Eastern Europe, Russia. From there, Orthodoxy converted and colonized Siberia, and it evangelized southern Alaska. Meanwhile, Orthodoxy preserved a small but vital presence of Christianity in the Middle East after the Muslim Arabs conquered the area; and the Orthodox Byzantine Empire was a barrier to Muslim conquest of Europe for over 600 years. While we're at it, let's also consider the current Orthodox missions in the Americas, Australia, Africa, India and South-East Asia (Singapore and Indonesia). Etc. The "lack of missionary impulse" in Orthodoxy that you cite does not exist.

-- John

Dear Friends,

This is a partial list of the Orthodox Missionary Saints of the last couple of hundred years:

St John Maximovych of Siberia (and his descendat, St John of Shanghai),

St Paul of Tobilsk

St Joasaph of Bila Tserkva

St Theophilus of Siberia

St Herman of Alaska

St Nicholas of Japan

St Jacov of Alaska

St Herman of Alaska

St Innocent of Alaska and America

St Peter the Aleut

St Arsenius of Winnipeg

St Raphael of Brooklyn

St Alexander of New York

St John of Chicago

Their missionary efforts generated the Choir of Saints of China and Siberia and America.

When St John of Shanghai and San Francisco was glorified a Saint in 1966, I believe, services honouring him were celebrated in many languages around the globe!

He was truly the "Apostle of the Diaspora!"

I'm so proud of this Ukrainian saint, I can't stand it!

Alex

Well, if the Russians are sniping at the Ecumenical Patriarch, perhaps the Patriarch should go on a snipe hunt!

Meanwhile, although Alex's basic point is correct - Orthodoxy does produce missionaries - I have a few questions/criticisms:


Is this by any chance St Ioasaph of Bilhorod?


Please German, Germanus, or Germain will do nicely. Besides, for some weird reason you've included him twice on the list!


There is no proof that he ever existed.

If you like Saints of North America - and why not? - you should begin with Saint Brendan the Navigator, who did exist, and whose voyage(s) to North America is/are quite credible.

Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco is indeed someone to be proud of, and to venerate highly. Be sure to have the magnificent video-recording of his glorification.

Fr. Serge

Bless, Father!

Your response to my post is basically correct. However . . .

St "Herman" is the standard spelling of his name as given by all the liturgical/historical texts I have yet to see. I didn't invent it. (I included him twice because some Saints are worth a double mention).

As for St Peter the Aleut - please contact the OCA to let them know they've committed a gross blunder and to begin the process of removing him from their icons of All Saints of North America etc.!

I love St Brendan the Navigator and know about archaeological digs on Baffin Island on an old Celtic site.

BTW, an earlier point you raised with respect to Charles II - what I meant to say that he was an RC by faith throughout his life but received Anglican sacraments before formally becoming RC on his deathbed.

I guess by that time he figured out that salvation isn't by "faith alone."

And there was a movement to canonized James II - his relics were found to be incorruptible during the French Revolution. I honour highly Charles I, Mary, Queen of Scots and James II. And also the Non-Jurors Thomas Ken and William Law. As for the rest of your now disappeared post - we will agree to disagree!

Slainte!

Alex

Curiosity kills the cat, but here I am!

I don't begrudge the glorification of St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco but it should confirm the observation thus made that the Orthodox are "immobile" as far as missions are concerned.

Take China. As one of the causes of his glorification, St. John might be turning in his grave if he comes to know that the
"Orthodox Church of China" is now without a priest nor a bishop and is down to around 3,000 faithful. His efforts are being brought to naught. (Of course, it is conveniently forgotten that Catholic missionaries were there centuries ahead of the Orthodox and persevered to this day!)

And San Francisco. St. John evangelizing the San Franciscans? It is an insult, to tell you the truth. As the city's name clearly implies, Catholic missionaries were there ahead centuries before. Ditto for Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and anywhere in between.

As to Alaska, Orthodox missionaries were naturally there because Alaska, at that time, was still part of Russia. Naturally, Catholic missionaries swarmed the State once it became a part of the U.S.

Also conveniently forgotten that even the Roman Catholics were late-comers. The Nestorians were there in 7th century!
_____
Balaenae nobis conservandae sunt

Amado,

Before making such an asinine statement, I think it would be best to familiarize yourself with the whole presence of the Orthodox in China, by reading the complete history, several of which are online as to why such things started and currently exist. The above statement only diminishes any credibility to your post and really makes you look foolish since the Orthodox Church's presence was not established by a missionary effort initially. All the above shows is that you are trying to be triumphalistic.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

By the way, Touchstone had a very interesting article on the Nestorian presence in China, Christ on the Silk Road:

http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-03-030-f

I have to say, that as a Byzantine Catholic living in Minneapolis, I have experienced nothing but charitable attitudes from my Orthodox brethren in the area.

Forgive my asking, but in what conceivable way can Saint John be blamed, or held responsible for the current lack of Orthodox clergy in China? This makes no sense at all.

Nor, for that matter, is there any reason to "blame" Saint John for the arrival of the Franciscans long before Saint John was born! They did their best; he did his best. I'd be inclined to say that San Francisco needed and needs all the missionaries it can get!

As to the use of the city's name in his title: it is perfectly normal to include the name of a Bishop's see city in his title. Thus we speak, for example, of Ss. Cyril of Alexandria and Cyril of Jerusalem, both to indicate where each served and to distinguish one from the other. Nor do we blame Saint Cyril of Jerusalem for either the Mohammedans or the Zionists, both of whom arose in history long after Saint Cyril of Jerusalem had gone to his reward.

Fr. Serge

I'd like to go back to the topic of liturgical beauty. If beauty in worship is the standard of the true faith, then will not that make Orthodoxy the clear winner?

Dear Fr. Serge:

(1) Nobody is blaming St. John for the resulting absence of Orthodox clergy in China today. If there is to blame, it is those who followed in his footsteps (or who did not follow through), which does confirm the observation made beforehand that the Orthodox are "immobile" as far as continuing missionary efforts are concerned.

(2) I took the citation by Alex of St. John (and now by you?) evangelizing San Francisco as an example of "Orthodox missionary efforts" as negating the fact that the city and all of California was already evangelized by Catholic missionaries long before he arrived at the scene. I personally consider this "omission" of evangelization efforts on the part of Catholic missionaries as demeaning, to say the least.

(3) I did not take umbrage to the use of San Francisco as one of his titular Sees, only to the allegation of his missionary efforts in San Francisco without regard to the efforts already expended by Catholic missionaries.

I think it is fairly well-known that the Nestorians were the first group to enter China around the 7th century and started evangelization there. But, the Nestorians were also later purged by the Chinese rulers and the Nestorians never came back.

Catholic missionaries took over around the 13th century and restarted evangelizing the Chinese off and on until the 16th century when the Jesuits arrived to bolster the missionary efforts. The Catholic missionaries were also later booted out often but they persevered and went back and back and back.

Today, the Catholic Church has grown and is surviving despite the continued persecution by the communist Chinese authorities.

Whereas, we lament the decline of the Orthodox Church of China, now without clergy and dwindling faithful. (Btw, there are a dozen or so native Chinese seminarians now studying in Russia, who, once ordained, will in all probability go back to China to minister to the Orthodox fiathful.) However, these future Orthodox priests will also be subjected to persecution and/or imprisonment because the communist government of China recognizes only 5 religious groups: Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, Protestant Christianity, and the government sponsored Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association or CPA. The "underground" Catholic Church is severely persecuted.

The EP's Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and Southeast Asia has available priests but are not allowed into mainland China and the Russian Orthodox priest(s) are allowed to celebrate the Divine Litrugy only within the confines of the Russian Embassy in Beijing.