We are not as the Roman Catholics in organizational make up. We also have a huge problem with jurisdictional sinfulness that needs to be immediately addressed for many reasons, but mostly because it is uncanonical and incredibly irregular for the Church. If we cannot have a proper Orthodox Church in America, how can we mobilize any political action? Not that we would, that would be like trying to herd cats.

Our priests do not, as a rule, preach politics from the ambon, they preach the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We still adhere to rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, yet we try to live the Gospel of our Lord.

But this is just my experience within the Church and my opinions are worth absolutely nothing because they are just sinful opinions. May God forgive me.

I restarted the thread here because this is apparently what was expected from the new post.

It is actually an answer to the question posed by Mr. Jones in the previous thread.

Met. Kyrill of the MP has a recent article with the online magazine Spiegle and he addresses this question at one point in it with his interlocutor.

The link is on the Paradosis blog.

In Christ,
The handmaid,
Mary-Leah

(ed - link is here for the article. Thanks for pointing it out, Mary-Leah)

Regarding the current discussion: I will read the article you mentioned. Sounds interesting.

For my part, my political beliefs have changed since we became Orthodox. They don’t fit neatly into one party or another, not that they ever did before, but even less so now…making it especially difficult this time to choose any candidate. I’m praying God’s will be done…and not just in a “God bless America” kind of way, if that makes sense, but that in all things, His will be done. Democracy is a precious thing…the recent events in Kenya have me thinking too.

If’n yir a tradishunalist of whatever stripe, Catholic, Orthodox ‘r Protestant, ain’t no one, with the possible exception of Ron Paul, for whom ye’ll be able to cast yir vote.

Neo-Evangelicals and neo-Catholics are all sucked in by modernity, and they thank it strange that ye cain’t get behind some “mainstream” candy date, whethuh Republican o’ Democrat.

They utterly clueless. ‘N the so-called “conservatives” among-’em ain’t got no clue as-ta what conservatism really is.

But one thang I’ll say here in closin’: tradishunalism is the Anglo-Celt West ain’t what it is in Eastern Europe. Accordin’ly, I have to laff at Orthodox who thank that American converts must become Greeks, Arabs or Russians, both in they spiritual and cultural/political “phronema”.

I love Christian Greeks, Arabs and Russians; but **bein’** one o’ them is the last thing on my mind. England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Revolutionary America and the CSA constitute my roots.

If’n they yo’ roots too, and if’n ye Orthodox, a case kin be made that the Western Rite is yo’ nachural home.

Mr. Jones, this argument, and I have heard it before, I actually find quite divisive and uncharitable. I have never had anyone tell me that I must become anything but an Orthodox Christian.

Why do you seek to find division everywhere Mr. Jones?

Forgive me, Amy, I too misread your comment. I should not have been so ready to take offense.

Mr. Jones, this argument, and I have heard it before, I actually find quite divisive and uncharitable. I have never had anyone tell me that I must become anything but an Orthodox Christian.

Why do you seek to find division everywhere Mr. Jones?”

I ain’t seekin’ division, only continuity, liturgical ‘n otherwise. In the Orthodox West, Christians din’t worship like Byzantines. Their rites develop’d mainly in the Latin ‘n Anglo-Celtic West. The Western Rites (Gregorian; “St. Tikhon”/BCP)ently in use under (mainly) the permishun of the Anteeochans are pretty much how they forebears worshipped.

If it’s a divisive spirit yir agin’, ‘L thin take a long, hard look at all th’antiputhy to the Western Rite among the Greek and OCA Orthodox. These folks wanna Byzantize all of Orthodoxy in the West. This aspite of th’ fact that the Western Rite has the blessin’ of at least two, maybe three, modern Orthodox saints. So, t’ my way o’ thankin’, it’s the modern day Byzantines who’re th’ divisive ones. They wanna divide Anglo-Celts from they historic liturgy. They always tawkin’ ’bout the supposed defects of “the West”. (Though as Anteeochan priest Fr. Patrick Reardon (et al.) has done show’d, mos’ of these folks ain’t got no clue as-ta wut they tawkin’ ’bout.) I cain’t thank of anythang mo’ “divisive” then that.

An’ if’n ye thank that the Greeks, Arabs ‘n Russians don’t take pride in they respektive ethnicity, the “heresy of philetism” notwithsatndin’, ye simply ain’t payin’ attenshun. The thang is, it’s OK to be proud of it. I’m proud o’ mine, but a rameefikashun of-att is-att I’m proud of British-Isles Christianity and the way it has historic’ly worshipped. ‘N I cain’t understan’ why so miny Western converts become Greek o’ Russian wannabes. Bein’ Anglo-Celts suits mos’ of us just fine.

N’-att applies not only to th’ way to worship, but to the ways of political thankin’, IMHO.

Get your terms straight and perhaps when you accuse someone of a heresy you might be taken seriously.

There was a separate bishopric created by the Bulgarian community of Istanbul for parishes only open to Bulgarians. So if only a Bulgarian could attend a Bulgarian Orthodox Church, then Orthodox Christianity is not for everyone and the Gospel of Christ would be a lie. This is base racism.

Do Christians of the West need a western Liturgy to be “Western Christians”? In reality as long as the theology is Orthodox the Liturgy is an external. In other words as long as you are Orthodox in your dogma, the Liturgy is external to the process and just the means of worship. Which is why there are so many Liturgies.

But be fully aware that when you accuse the Russians, Greeks, et al of “phyletism” it is no such thing and shows that you have knowledge of a few terms with no real meat on those terms. Those very same Churches condemned what the Bulgarians did and set them back on the correct path.

The Western Rite exists for those who want it, to expect the other jurisdictions to create a Western Rite when they do not have to and then accuse them of phyletism because they haven’t is a real stretch.

As I said, nobody expected me to be anything other than what I was when I became Orthodox and I embraced my parish for what it was and they embraced my family for themselves. These are foolish false dichotomies set up by people looking not for salvation, but for something else from the Church here on earth. It is not a club, not a social construct, not a political entity, and not here to make us feel good about ourselves, it is the place we go to worship the Living God to be saved.

I have responded to you with respectful answers and have found, that for the most part, you are not responding in kind. Mostly it is with generalizations about other Orthodox, as if we can all be lumped together. Very uncharitable of you Mr. Jones. I must say I find myself struggling with you as an interlocutor.

Forgive me.

If the Western Rite is where you seek your salvation, may the Lord bless.

So liturgy is “just” th’ means of worship, eh? ‘L, I thank if ye delve into-iss a little mo’ deeply ye’ll find stonger passhuns thin that among the people. It ain’t only liturgy, but history and even theological slant. But thank God fo’ the Anteocheans and Russians. If it were left to the OCA or the GOA, wuldn’t be no Western Rite allowed.

Now, ye write the followin’, and truly I am puzzled over it:

“I have responded to you with respectful answers and have found, that for the most part, you are not responding in kind. Mostly it is with generalizations about other Orthodox, as if we can all be lumped together. Very uncharitable of you Mr. Jones. I must say I find myself struggling with you as an interlocutor.”

I thank maybe ye oughta re-read the exchange and see who it is who really is exhibitin’ a sharp, angry tone here. All I did wuz ask a question (about the relationship of Orthodox theology and American politicul theory) express an opinyun (’bout Orthodoxy a’n cultural integrity). And my generalizashuns will stand up, I thank. Seems like I may have hit a nerve, tho.

Lassly, I don’t need no “Western Rite” if’n by that you mean Orthodox Western Rite, cuz I ain’t Orthodox. Book of Common Prayer duz jus’ fine, thank ye.

Given the limitations of this medium, you cannot tell whether I am being sharp or not, you do not know me. What I am speaking to, with regard to your answers is the generalities you make. One priest, one Greek or Russian priest does not speak for all of Holy Orthodoxy.

St Mark of Ephesus says clearly: “Let no one dominate in our faith: neither emperor, nor hierarch, nor false council, nor anyone else, but only the one God, who both himself and through his disciples has handed it down to us.”

If you have been given any impressions otherwise, take them for what they are worth, as coming from sinful people, who are prone to error and pride.

It is easy to make judgments towards another’s faith, you are not a member of it and have no knowledge of its workings, its issues nor do you have a love for it. Yet it is not your place and creates no feelings of good-will or love in your neighbor to do these things.

I find you a difficult interlocutor, Mr. Jones because you persist in typing in dialect that is difficult to read and makes you sound, frankly ignorant. This entire exchange has taken far longer than it should have because of it.

You speak of “Orthodox Cultural integrity”; as if that is a bad thing. The Church and life are one. The countries that have brought the faith over to this country have lived the Faith for a thousand or better years in some cases, if that is wrapped up in cultural identity, glory be to Jesus Christ, we should be so lucky.

This country is young and secular, as in not religious at all. It doesn’t have a state church, nor should it. But that doesn’t mean that the Orthodox shouldn’t live their faith everyday and that means it becomes their culture.

So you don’t like my response to your charge of phyletism and now you introduce the jurisdictional situation? I haven’t criticized your faith or your church, yet you have found a target in mine. Glory be to Jesus Christ!

People in glass houses Mr. Jones, shouldn’t cast stones.

So, re: the orijnul subjict: y’all saw here two diffurnt responses, one from Vara and one from th’ Handmaiden (who linked an excellent “open letter” from Orthodox author Clark Carlton), which betray jus’ th’ issue I wuz gettin’ at. Vara writes-iss:

“I am a dyed-in-the-wool Old European Conservative. To my mind, most American ‘conservatives’ are not such, but, rather ‘radicals’ (in the European sense). That is to say, I am ‘King and Country, Blood and Soil, Sword and Faith’. I reject the American ‘Revolution’ and all that it stands for. America was not made great by this historical event. Its strength arises from the fact that it is separated by oceanic distances from its stronger adversaries and by the fact that its foes on this continent were weak and disunited.

That is, I am an ‘imperialist’ rather than a ‘democrat’. Democracy is mostly a sham, and I do not participate in ‘politics’, as I find it puerile and boring beyond words.”

Now, that raht thar is a response that is in keepin’ with Orthodoxy’s histor’cal experiunce. And I know (and know of) not a few Orthodox folks, convert as well as cradle, who thank like she do, ’specially ‘mong the Slavs, as to them th’ Czar is recent memory. ‘N-att’s wut I mean when I ask, how is historic Orthodox culture t’be reconciled with American culture, ’specially in the area of politics? If’n ye notice th’ contempt with which she describes our reverlution (puttin’ it in quotation marks ‘n such) “and all that it stands for”, how would such a person ever assimilate? ‘N wut if ever’one began to thank like she do? Do we want America to be Russia? I don’t, any more than I want it to be Saudi Arabia.

Or Mexico.

But thin consider th’ response of the Handmaiden, a’quotin’ Clark Carlton. I say-att’s mo’ like it, her romantic notions ’bout th’ Orthodox cultures of th’ Middle East and Eastern Europe notwithstandin’. She desribes herself as both a libertarian and a conservative (ideologies eshooed by Vara), ‘n she’s a supporter of th’ libertarian Republican Ron Paul, jus’ like ole Snaggle-Tooth th’ Confederatarian. My dispute with her aside, I thank SHE repursents what Orthodox shud be like here in America: lovin’ our reverlution ‘n all-att it stands fer. (’N you do love ‘em thangs, don’t ye, Handmaid? Else why woud ye support Ron Paul?) While Putin may be good fer RUSSIA, if’n such a one ever came to power here, I would hope all Americans woud show him the meanin’ of “sic semper tyrranus.”

Now, I persunly would take-iss principle further and say that Western Orthodox don’t need to be under Greek or Arab or Russian bishops (or American Grecophile, Arabophile or Russophile bishops), nor do they need to pray the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, since they got they own distinctively Western liturgies. But the Eastern rite is here, ‘n-iss is America, so they got that option if’n they want it. What chaps old Snaggle-Tooth’s hide is when Orthodox Greek and Russian chauvinists poo-poo the Western Rite as “un-Orthodox”. They antipathy to ever’thang Western is most off-putin’. (Putin’ - no pun intended )

So, to RichieD, I’d ask you: Bein’ that this here blog is a member of an alliance of political blogs, and bein’ that yir Orthodox, how do you see this matter?

As I have said, my people have been here since the Revolution and fought in every war since and yes, the United States is a Constitutional Republic and will, God willing always remain so.

What I fail to see you understand or appreciate is the Orthodox point of view. I fully understand Vara’s point of view, perhaps because I am Orthodox and I actually agree with some of what she said, though I wouldn’t state things in quite that way. However, I have only ever lived in the United States, an atheist state that is friendly to religion. Her heritage and experience is broader. She knows decidedly of three styles of government, one that is friendly to religion and secular; one that is Orthodox Monarchy; and one that is decidedly antagonistic - Communist. This would tend to color one’s view of government. She is allowed her preference.

There are religious reasons for preferring Monarchy and Orthodox Monarchy in particular:

“The United States is secular and the secular state is always atheistic. St. Gregory the Theologian observed in the 4th century that there are three fundamental kinds of government: monarchy, the rule of one, is associated with belief in one God or, at least, one supreme God. Polyarchy (aristocracy, the rule of the few, and it is linked with polytheism (to which I would add Oligarchy); and the rule of the many, which Saint Gregory called Anarchy (Democracy), this is bound with atheism.

The Orthodox hold monarchy “in honour”, because it imitates the unity of God, whereas polyarchy or oligarchy implies a division or dispersion of His Power, a “severance of His Essence,” that is, among many gods. Finally, anarchy, the government of the people, implies theologically that the Essence of God is pulverized; or, in other words, power is so completely spread out or distributed that He cannot be conceived to exist (Theol. Ora. III, 2). We ought not be confused by St. Gregory’s explanation. He did not mean that nations always make conscious, philosophically elaborated choices, but that there is always a direct connection between theology and politics.

We can see this fact even more clearly in the “political theology” or “christology” of Christian Rome where the monarchy and the empire imitate the Incarnation. Thus, as Jesus Christ was both God and man, so Orthodox monarchical society likewise possessed two dimensions, one earthly and one heavenly, united as the two Natures in Christ. The Basileus or Tsar, the imperium, Emperor, represented the humanity of Christ and the priesthood or sacerdotium was the analogy of His Divinity. They collaborated in the perfection of Christian society even as “the Whole Christ” works for the salvation of the world. In very broad terms, the domain of the Emperor was the body while the priesthood cared for the soul. Of course, the Emperor’s subjects were, like himself, members of the Church; for, in a real sense, the Empire was the Church.

Orthodox peoples have known only monarchy - whether pagan, Christian, Moslem or heretic. For a while, at least, the West was Orthodox and maintained the correct “political theology” and “christology.”

I am sure you read your Sacred Scriptures Mr. Jones, there are no accidents, especially for the Orthodox:

In the period from Moses to Saul, the people were ruled by the Judges, many of whom, like Joshua, Jephtha and Gideon, were holy, truly charismatic leaders. However, towards the end of the period, since “there was no king in Israel; everyone did what seemed right to him” (Judges 21.25), and barbaric acts, such as that which almost led to the extermination of the tribe of Benjamin, are recorded. Doesn’t this sound familiar? Sounds like people today! In their desperation at the mounting anarchy, the people called on God through the Prophet Samuel to provide them with a king. Of course, God gave them King Saul but eventually they got King David. Then we got our King, the ruler of the Universe, come to save us. He set up things a certain way for a reason…

“Christ was born just as the Roman Empire was coming into being. The significance of this coincidence did not escape the Holy Fathers, whose thought was encapsulated in a verse from the Divine services for the Nativity: “When Augustus reigned alone upon earth, the many kingdoms of men came to an end: and when Thou was made man of the pure Virgin, the many gods of idolatry were destroyed. The cities of the world passed under one single rule; and the nations came to believe in one sovereign Godhead. The peoples were enrolled by the decree of Caesar; and we, the faithful, were enrolled in the Name of the Godhead, when Thou, our God, wast made man. Great is Thy mercy: glory to Thee.”

This verse establishes a certain providential parallelism between the birth of the Church in the Body of the God-Man, and the birth of the Empire. The Church and the Empire were born and grew up together, as it were; Christ was a citizen of each while being at the same time the Lord of both. It is as if the Empire came into existence precisely for the sake of the Church, creating a political unity that would help and protect the spiritual unity created by the Church.

Similarly, according to the apostolic teaching, the death of the Empire would presage the death of the Church - or rather, her apparent demise during the time of the Antichrist. For this is the meaning of St. Paul’s words: “The mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way” (II Thess. 2.7). According to the unanimous witness of the Holy Fathers from St. John Chrysostom to Bishop Theophanes the Recluse and St. John of Kronstadt, “he who restrains” is the Roman Emperor, or monarchical power in general. The Roman Emperor restrains the appearance of evil in its most radical form, the Antichrist. Therefore his removal will make possible the appearance of the Antichrist and usher in the end of the world and the Second Coming of Christ.”

Don’t even get me started on the endtimes prophecies concerning the regicide of Nicholas II! That is enough to make one’s hair stand on end -
I pray that I have explained a little of why so many Orthodox feel so strongly about Monarchy and Orthodox Monarchy in particular. Having been Orthodox for almost eight years, just a babe in the faith, I must tell you that I have never heard anyone advocate for a monarchy here in the United States, ever. There are restoration movements for Russia and Greece. Now the Muslims on the other hand…

All I can say to you is, try to understand and in turn you’ll be understood -
The Orthodox look at the United States as a place of evangelism, a place to enculturate, as if “pop culture” will ever give way to an American Orthodox Christian one! Since we are in latter days, sort of - on the out posts of the world here as Orthodox, facing the new World Order, atheism, et al., we do not in any way want anything but to spread and live the Gospel of Jesus Christ, without persecution. But if that comes, then glory be to Jesus Christ!

Our rights derive from our Creator, this makes the United States fundamentally special among Republics.

We are secular and essentially atheistic in government because there is no official “state church”. I am not advocating for one, just stating the obvious.