Orthodox Christianity at the Crossroad:A Great Council of the Church ? When and WhyThe purpose of publishing the papers presented at the Twentieth Annual Meeting of Orthodox Christian Laity is to improve ?lay and clergy literacy? on the conference topic of ?The Need for a Great and Holy Council.? The papers are presented with the hope that the information will motivate the faithful to participate in the conciliar decision-making process that moves the Church forward on the issue of developing the council or another appropriate meeting. The forces, factors, and history that inhibit calling a council are presented in these papers. The hope of what can be accomplished when brothers work in synergy with each other and the Holy Spirit is also evident.The renewal of Orthodox Christianity and the renewal of its witness in the contemporary world of global religious pluralism depend on such a meeting. The calling of a council free of worldly, political, power, turf, ego and ethnic considerations will renew the ?Living Tradition? of Orthodoxy, which is its Apostolic calling. The world is looking for this ?Living Tradition,? which cannot be well-expressed by a fragmented Orthodox Church. A council is a step toward renewing the Church and making it whole in order to teach this ?Living Tradition.?It is interesting to note?as this collection of papers points out?that the children of Orthodox Christians living in America have come together as Americans, in order to remain Orthodox, through campus ministry programs that they are developing. The young adults are leading the way to Orthodox unity. Is it not time for the Church elders, the hierarchs, the clergy, and the faithful to look at the example of unity that the youth are providing and move ahead to do what is necessary to renew the Church through this conciliar council?ABOUT THE EDITORGeorge E. Matsoukas, Executive Director of Orthodox Christian Laity since 2000, rec
Orthodox Christianity at the Crossroad
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| |||||||||||||||
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Customer Reviews
Share your thoughts with other customers
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
Format:Paperback
This text provides five invited presentations delivered to the Twentieth Anniversary of the Orthodox Christian Laity [OCL] on 03 November 2007 in Glenview, Illinois [USA]. Varying in length from 10 to 20 pages each, chapters [presentations] of the text have been edited by George E. Matsoukas, who also provides a brief Introduction [ix-x]. A foreword and overview [iii-viii] by Archbishop Nathaniel of Detroit, moderator of the 2007 conference, provides what might be considered a seventh chapter.
Were it not for two initial paragraphs [iii], Archbishop Nathaniel's Foreword might have accomplished little else than summarize presentations to the 2007 OCL Annual Meeting. However, His Eminence introduces his remarks by admitting to disappointment in the Ecumenical Patriarchate having "ignored" a 1998 OCL resolution for a united autocephalous Orthodox Church in America. His disappointment is coupled with praise for OCL's unfeigned activities across the same decade [cf. "Resolution for Autocephaly Adopted October 10, 1998"]. Certainly, one might surmise from Nathaniel's statement that any response from the Phanar to the 1998 OCL Resolution had been neglected prior to His All Holiness Bartholomew's call for a Great and Holy Council during the second week of October 2008--the year after the OCL Annual Meeting in 2007.
Missing from the Foreword is a simple question: What should the reader make of His All Holiness having ignored the 1998 Resolution? It is remarkable and entirely Christian that a two-page Postscript [77-8] in the text never mentions a decade of silent neglect. Rather, the Postscript reflects thanksgiving and hope by OCL and friends for long-awaited changes that may come in this Great and Holy Council.
Indeed, overall themes of thanksgiving and hope, matched with perseverance in faith, characterize each chapter in this 89-page text. Along with editor Matsoukas, contributors include respected lay and clerical leaders from Russian [Moscow Patriarchate], Romanian [Romanian Diocese of the OCA], Greek and Serbian Orthodox jurisdictions as well as the Orthodox Church in America. The editor states that "...these papers give the reader a greater understanding of Orthodox Christianity worldwide and why a Great and Holy Council was not convened in the twentieth century" [ix].
Could it be that a Great and Holy Council was not convened in the twentieth century because hierarchs and laypeople of the so-called Diaspora had become distant cousins in the household of faith? If so, then Metropolitan Christopher has bridged a centuries-old communication gap in his presentation, "The Need for an Inclusive and Open Council Motivated by Love and Integrity" [5-17, inclusive of transcribed questions and answers]. His Eminence serves the Midwestern Diocese of the Serbian Church.
Two sentences from Metropolitan Christopher's address, merit attention. These sentences employ rhetorical devices and meta-speech that bond speaker and audience in shared opinion and identity. First, His Eminence quotes "a prominent civil rights preacher" regarding the importance of full participation in Christian mission, which he reframes for OCL as upholding Christ in love and faith [6-7]. Second, he states, "I, for one, categorically reject being put in the category of "Diaspora." I am an American, this is my country, and I am proud of my heritage" [7].
Not only does the last sentence illustrate a rhetorical synecdoche, but also it casts the speaker in an identical destiny with his audience. Coupled destinies provide an example of meta-speech, which should strike insiders in Orthodoxy as momentous if not also fortuitous. The Metropolitan is preaching to the choir without pedantry or polemic.
Metropolitan Christopher responds to a question concerning participation by the Serbian Church in a united autocephalous Orthodox Church in America with a cautionary remark. If the Council were to welcome full participation by all jurisdictions, without "a stacked deck" and any expectation of "blind obedience," then he says the Serbians would be likely to participate [16-7].
The third chapter offers the Very Rev. Dr. John Erickson's insightful review of the role that the Ecumenical Patriarchate provides "...the common life of the Orthodox Churches" [20]. I consider his chapter insightful because he deftly relates Orthodox ecclesiastical decisions about a Great and Holy Council to an international political timeline across the 19th and 20th-centuries [cf. "Timeline Toward a Great and Holy Council," pp. 1-3] along with shifting allegiances to nation-states by the principal diptychs.
Erickson's aim is to lay out debates over how to interpret Chalcedon Canon 28 and Canon 3 from I Constantinople. Namely, Erickson explores the large corpus of literature from historic regional and Ecumenical Synods to determine what limitations, if any, might be applied to "the prerogatives of the primacy of honor" [29] ascribed to Constantinople. I believe that this chapter provides sufficient nuance to please many tastes. In brief, Erickson advances a more limited interpretation of Constantinopolitan primacy in the last two centuries than the Phanar or Muscovite detractors have argued.
Three remaining chapters deal with (1) a Russian's vision for unity by Archpriest Alexander Abromov, representing the Moscow Patriarchate in the US [41-50]; (2) a full integration of youth in planning and deliberations for the Great and Holy Council according to Dr. Vigen Guroian, professor of Religious Studies, University of Virginia [51-9]; and (3) an appraisal of social science co-variables that hinder and/or promote convening a Great and Holy Council, by Dr. Elizabeth H. Prodromou, assistant professor of Boston University's Department of International Relations [61-71].
Every Orthodox Christian needs to read this book. I imagine its cogent presentations will appeal to parishes in every jurisdiction, where material may be discussed and textual references consulted in preparation for the Great and Holy Council. The book should be translated into principal languages of Orthodox jurisdictions in the Americas, such as Spanish, Greek, Serbian, Russian and Romanian. A study guide, if it were to be developed, could provide even greater assistance. A study guide accompanying the book would aid adult and youth education classes to appreciate the importance of involvement by every Orthodox Christian in praying for the blessings of God over the Council and support for all parishes to be active participants in supporting meetings preceding the Council itself.
Were it not for two initial paragraphs [iii], Archbishop Nathaniel's Foreword might have accomplished little else than summarize presentations to the 2007 OCL Annual Meeting. However, His Eminence introduces his remarks by admitting to disappointment in the Ecumenical Patriarchate having "ignored" a 1998 OCL resolution for a united autocephalous Orthodox Church in America. His disappointment is coupled with praise for OCL's unfeigned activities across the same decade [cf. "Resolution for Autocephaly Adopted October 10, 1998"]. Certainly, one might surmise from Nathaniel's statement that any response from the Phanar to the 1998 OCL Resolution had been neglected prior to His All Holiness Bartholomew's call for a Great and Holy Council during the second week of October 2008--the year after the OCL Annual Meeting in 2007.
Missing from the Foreword is a simple question: What should the reader make of His All Holiness having ignored the 1998 Resolution? It is remarkable and entirely Christian that a two-page Postscript [77-8] in the text never mentions a decade of silent neglect. Rather, the Postscript reflects thanksgiving and hope by OCL and friends for long-awaited changes that may come in this Great and Holy Council.
Indeed, overall themes of thanksgiving and hope, matched with perseverance in faith, characterize each chapter in this 89-page text. Along with editor Matsoukas, contributors include respected lay and clerical leaders from Russian [Moscow Patriarchate], Romanian [Romanian Diocese of the OCA], Greek and Serbian Orthodox jurisdictions as well as the Orthodox Church in America. The editor states that "...these papers give the reader a greater understanding of Orthodox Christianity worldwide and why a Great and Holy Council was not convened in the twentieth century" [ix].
Could it be that a Great and Holy Council was not convened in the twentieth century because hierarchs and laypeople of the so-called Diaspora had become distant cousins in the household of faith? If so, then Metropolitan Christopher has bridged a centuries-old communication gap in his presentation, "The Need for an Inclusive and Open Council Motivated by Love and Integrity" [5-17, inclusive of transcribed questions and answers]. His Eminence serves the Midwestern Diocese of the Serbian Church.
Two sentences from Metropolitan Christopher's address, merit attention. These sentences employ rhetorical devices and meta-speech that bond speaker and audience in shared opinion and identity. First, His Eminence quotes "a prominent civil rights preacher" regarding the importance of full participation in Christian mission, which he reframes for OCL as upholding Christ in love and faith [6-7]. Second, he states, "I, for one, categorically reject being put in the category of "Diaspora." I am an American, this is my country, and I am proud of my heritage" [7].
Not only does the last sentence illustrate a rhetorical synecdoche, but also it casts the speaker in an identical destiny with his audience. Coupled destinies provide an example of meta-speech, which should strike insiders in Orthodoxy as momentous if not also fortuitous. The Metropolitan is preaching to the choir without pedantry or polemic.
Metropolitan Christopher responds to a question concerning participation by the Serbian Church in a united autocephalous Orthodox Church in America with a cautionary remark. If the Council were to welcome full participation by all jurisdictions, without "a stacked deck" and any expectation of "blind obedience," then he says the Serbians would be likely to participate [16-7].
The third chapter offers the Very Rev. Dr. John Erickson's insightful review of the role that the Ecumenical Patriarchate provides "...the common life of the Orthodox Churches" [20]. I consider his chapter insightful because he deftly relates Orthodox ecclesiastical decisions about a Great and Holy Council to an international political timeline across the 19th and 20th-centuries [cf. "Timeline Toward a Great and Holy Council," pp. 1-3] along with shifting allegiances to nation-states by the principal diptychs.
Erickson's aim is to lay out debates over how to interpret Chalcedon Canon 28 and Canon 3 from I Constantinople. Namely, Erickson explores the large corpus of literature from historic regional and Ecumenical Synods to determine what limitations, if any, might be applied to "the prerogatives of the primacy of honor" [29] ascribed to Constantinople. I believe that this chapter provides sufficient nuance to please many tastes. In brief, Erickson advances a more limited interpretation of Constantinopolitan primacy in the last two centuries than the Phanar or Muscovite detractors have argued.
Three remaining chapters deal with (1) a Russian's vision for unity by Archpriest Alexander Abromov, representing the Moscow Patriarchate in the US [41-50]; (2) a full integration of youth in planning and deliberations for the Great and Holy Council according to Dr. Vigen Guroian, professor of Religious Studies, University of Virginia [51-9]; and (3) an appraisal of social science co-variables that hinder and/or promote convening a Great and Holy Council, by Dr. Elizabeth H. Prodromou, assistant professor of Boston University's Department of International Relations [61-71].
Every Orthodox Christian needs to read this book. I imagine its cogent presentations will appeal to parishes in every jurisdiction, where material may be discussed and textual references consulted in preparation for the Great and Holy Council. The book should be translated into principal languages of Orthodox jurisdictions in the Americas, such as Spanish, Greek, Serbian, Russian and Romanian. A study guide, if it were to be developed, could provide even greater assistance. A study guide accompanying the book would aid adult and youth education classes to appreciate the importance of involvement by every Orthodox Christian in praying for the blessings of God over the Council and support for all parishes to be active participants in supporting meetings preceding the Council itself.
