Comments on: St. Vladimir’s lecture

By: OrthodoxHistory.org » Blog Archive » The Origins of the “Myth of Unity”

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:01:34 +0000

[...] Back in June, I gave a paper at St. Vladimir’s Seminary entitled, “The Myth of Past Unity and the Origins of Jurisdictional Pluralism in American Orthodoxy.” The unwieldy title notwithstanding, the premise of my paper was simple: that the commonly-held story of a unified American Orthodoxy which fragmented after the Russian Revolution is, quite simply, not accurate. In fact, administrative division has been part and parcel of Orthodox life in the United States from the very beginning. [...]

By: American Orthodox Christian Historiography: The Methodological Problem « Leitourgeia kai Qurbana: Contra den Zeitgeist

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:03:49 +0000

[...] [40] Matthew Namee, “The Myth of Past Unity,” in Orthodoxy in America: Past, Present and Future (St. Vladimir’s Seminary, Crestwood, New York2009). Online at http://orthodoxhistory.org/?p=102. [...]

By: Matthew Namee

Matthew Namee — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 04:48:24 +0000

Richard, that’s a great question. You left out another piece that makes the New York situation even more complicated — after all that effort to get in touch with the Patriarch of Constantinople, the priest who ended up coming to serve the community was from the Church of Greece.

There was more than one way to form a parish back in those days, and the Chicago and New York models illustrate that complexity. While the Chicago situation sounds more straightforward, I noted in another post that the Orthodox community there dealt with no fewer than four different Old World Churches — Russia, Greece, Serbia, and the EP. The first three of those Churches sent clergy to Chicago, and the first two parishes in Chicago were under Russia and Greece. It was a rather convoluted mess.

I suspect the founding members of the various parishes put their own knowledge to work. Some might have contacted the local bishop back home; others might have appealed directly to the central authority (whomever they perceived that to be). You might have had multiple people in the same community appealing to multiple Old World authorities. Because there was no clear-cut, undisputed hierarchical authority, multiple avenues were used, depending on the group.

By: Richard Barrett

Richard Barrett — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:17:48 +0000

A question occurs to me in reviewing your presentation. You mention that the “Society of Athena” Greeks in New York followed a rather convoluted chain of communication; first to Archbishop Methodios of Syra, who then spoke with “a dignitary at Athens,” who then contacted the Patriarch of Constantinople. By contrast, the Society of Lycourgos Greeks in Chicago contacted the Metropolitan of Athens, who dealt with the matter directly.

What do you make of this difference?

By: OrthodoxHistory.org » Blog Archive » “This Syrian Bishop derives his authority from… Antioch”

Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:12:37 +0000

[...] his post on St. Raphael’s consecration as well as listening to the relevant parts in his “The Myth of Past Unity” [...]

By: OrthodoxHistory.org » Blog Archive » Debates on unity: three issues

OrthodoxHistory.org » Blog Archive » Debates on unity: three issues — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:43:39 +0000

[...] including myself and Fr Oliver Herbel, have made the argument that early American Orthodoxy was not administratively [...]

By: OrthodoxHistory.org » Blog Archive » St. Tikhon, the Russian Council of 1917-18, and the History of the OCA

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:00:21 +0000

[...] June 18 at the recent conference held at St. Vladimir’s Seminary (the same conference which featured our own Matthew [...]