The work of the historian is inherently interpretive. Even when I simply print an historical source, without comment, I am engaging in (subjective) interpretation — after all, I am publishing THIS source, rather than that one. Yes, we must be extremely careful to be honest and fair in our presentation of the evidence, but we can never really escape our own subjectivity.

Furthermore, I don’t think historians must never comment on what should have been (as opposed to simply “what was”). On the contrary, historians tend to be the best informed people on the subject of what was, and thus are often well positioned to speak about how that past reality may have been improved. Often, I do think people get distracted by the question of what should have been, and spend far too much time debating what are usually dead issues. These debates can become a proxy for debates about the present (“what should be”). I don’t think such debates are always to be avoided, but I do think they should be treated carefully, and differently than more fact-based debates about what actually happened.

On the subject of present-day ecclesiastical issues (“what should be”), I think all three of SOCHA’s directors have made it clear that we support the Episcopal Assembly. Our historical work can certainly have a bearing on the way the Assembly is understood. I don’t think historians must be utterly silent on current affairs, although I do think we must always be careful not to simply descend into the muck of church politics. The balance is a difficult one, and I would never claim that I personally have always remained above the fray.

Anyway, once again, I want to emphasize that I appreciate Christopher’s thoughtful comments.

It’s worth noting that SOCHA and the OH.org site have never claimed to be exclusively dedicated to purely objective reporting. This is a society dedicated to historical study, which includes analysis and subjective editorial, as well. This is not the first such commentary to appear on this site, and I don’t think it will be the last.

What I believe makes SOCHA “new” on the scene is an organized dedication to looking at our history in terms of the actual sources, i.e., what anywhere else would be regarded simply as the basic integrity required for historical study. Though there have been some notable exceptions, there’s been too much polemic, tertiary study, political agenda, rumor and hearsay which has driven Orthodox American historiography for far too long. It’s time to put that approach in the ground, because it’s frankly just plain dishonest, or at least ignorant.

SOCHA has a broad aim, as stated in the “About” section of this site: The Society for Orthodox Christian History in the Americas (SOCHA) exists to promote the study of the history of the Orthodox Christian Church in the New World; to collect source materials and make them available to researchers and scholars; to disseminate historical information to the public; and to encourage networking among those engaged in the study of American Orthodox history. SOCHA is particularly dedicated to this study based on the examination of primary sources with integrity and clarity.

Describing the content of sources is only one element of what the Society does.

As for Bessarabia, I wouldn’t think that two wrongs make a right. The majority of Orthodox there seem to want to remain part of the Moscow Patriarchate. If that’s not the case or a matter of education, then wouldn’t a more loving approach to the situation be for the Church of Romania to wait until Moldova is at a place where a peaceful transition of the whole country to Bucharest can be made?

I still think it important in our modern situation that the Church of Rus’ maintains its canonical territory together with dioceses in its diaspora. The wording of its statute may be scary, but its application is not. Moscow has yet to set up its own dioceses on the territory of a universally recognized church.

I support the OCA’s autocephaly in a general way, but the messy situation the West finds itself in canonically makes it difficult to say that all the other world Orthodox Churches are wrong to have their own dioceses in North America. That’s why I didn’t bring it up in my original comment. It could be said that Bulgaria’s recognition of the OCA’s autocephaly makes the presence of its diocese in North America unnecessary, however.

I plan on going onto this (I have a time crunch at present, due to many hot rods in my fire), but to address this, look at how it is implemented, rather than how it is feared it is implemented.

The Church of Japan, by the agreement of the Tomos of Autcephaly, Art. X
“Recognizing the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate as a lawful and canonical jurisdiction over the Orthodox Church in Japan, the parties agree that the Orthodox Church in Japan shall be granted autonomy, upon its petition, by the Moscow Patriarchate.”
http://www.oca.org/DOCautocephaly.asp?SID=12&ID=72
The Phanar likes to ignore the existence of the autonomous Church of Japan, but exists it does. In fact, Met. Daniel was nominated to the post of Patriarch of Moscow. Though I like HB Kyril, Pat. Daniel would have been interesting. The Church of China is also autonomous under Moscow (something also ignored by the Phanar).

The Tomos itself states “Parishes and clergy in the U.S.A. which remain in the canonical jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate shall be governed by the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia through one of his vicar bishops; not having a title of the local American Church, especially appointed for this, and until such time as these parishes express their official desire to join the Autocephalous Church in America in the manner described below.”
http://www.oca.org/DOCtomos.asp?SID=12
Some such parishes still exist: one is the home parish of Met. Jonah, of whom the vicar bishop, Justinian, above refered to, stated recently “Archbishop Justinian offered greetings from His Holiness, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus, expressing the Patriarch’s brotherly support for Metropolitan Jonah’s position as Primate of the Orthodox Church in America.” A similar provision exists in Canada.

As for the rest of the Americas, the agreement states, art. XI “The parties agree that neither of them now possesses or claims to have exclusive jurisdiction of the Orthodox faith in the continent of South and Central America where the canonical status quo is preserved.” Moscow didn’t give up its parishes there, and still has them by canonical right.

Japan, China, and the Americas (and Oceania for that matter) are not under the usual jurisdiction of Moscow, and hence not listed in the article you quote, Father. But Moscow does have parishes in these “other countries” in perfect canonical order, which have to be accounted for in the general statute. Hence the clause. Nothing necessarily more sinister than that.

Moscow has provided priests etc. for expat communities of Africa: they are under the omophorion of the Patriarch of Alexandria. There are plenty of Russians in Palestine: they commemorate the Patriarch of Jerusalem.

Now, if Moscow was making statements as the Phanar’s bishops are in the courts of law in Britain and France about a super jurisdiction over Western Europe (where Moscow also has parishes) and the world, there might be a smoking gun. I haven’t seen it yet. There is an issue perhaps brewing in Finland, but then, I’m not sure of the canonical basis for Finland being ripped from Moscow’s jurisdiction in the first place.

I will admit, however, that Moscow has established jurisdiction on both poles:
http://img.rian.ru/images/6278/09/62780981.jpg
http://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/north-pole.jpg

No, I don’t ignore what can be called Moscow’s identical behavior (though I’m skeptical of whether such charecterization can withstand scrutiny), but I do emphasize that I have been to the living and vibrant Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch which Moscow’s “behavior” made possible, whereas the Phanariots would have killed them off (as is happening in Jerusalem). Almost no one’s house may be in order, but some are not even trying.

I don’t have a problem at all seeing my brother is just as much the Church as I am. I do have a problem with said brother calling another “so-called” and seeing that as not only Orthodox, but the height of canonical Orthodox praxis.

I believe you are missing my point. I wasn’t dismissing the opposition to “ultramarism,” nor was I agreeing with such claims. The point is really that almost all the Orthodox churches are doing it in one way or another, but some are more explicit about it than others. The quote passage from Moscow’s Statute is particularly disturbing, claiming as it does the potential for jurisdiction in every single place on Earth.

The Americanist problem in this respect is precisely in pointing the finger at Constantinople but being blind to similar or identical behavior elsewhere in the Orthodox world. The root of that problem is a sectarianism, a refusal to see one’s erring brother and say with St. Silouan, “My brother is my life.” Indeed, in this regard, “My brother is me.” Almost no one’s house is in order.

It is the failure to realize that my brother is just as much the Church as I am that is the ground on which our current disunities are perpetuated.

“Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy. It cannot be accepted, as often it is said, that the unity among the Orthodox Churches is safeguarded by either a common norm of faith and worship or by the Ecumenical Council as an institution. Both of these factors are impersonal while in our Orthodox theology the principle of unity is always a person. Indeed, in the level of the Holy Trinity the principle of unity is not the divine essence but the Person of the Father (“Monarchy” of the Father), at the ecclesiological level of the local Church the principle of unity is not the presbyterium or the common worship of the Christians but the person of the Bishop, so to in the Pan-Orthodox level the principle of unity cannot be an idea nor an institution but it needs to be, if we are to be consistent with our theology, a person.”

“For the Ecumenical Patriarchate is not ethnic in the modern sense of the term. It is the continuation of the traditional and patristic expression of Christianity, as this was organically shaped in the historical context of a non-ethnic, ecumenical Empire and as this was recorded and codified in the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.
The Ecumenical Councils recorded the original Christian and Apostolic understanding regarding the organization of Church life purely on the basis of geographical criteria and not any linguistic or ethnic origin. The jurisdiction of each Church was accurately described and defined in their decisions, while the holy and inspired Fathers knew very well that certain regions existed outside the boundaries of the Roman world and outside the then-known “oecumene,” which they labeled with the term “barbarian.” The pastoral responsibility for these regions was assigned to the Ecumenical Patriarch.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate did not come to this land as an ethnic Church in order to establish an ethnic jurisdiction. This would have been incompatible with both its ecclesiological principles and its very identity, but also with its long history. The Archdiocese is “Greek” in the sense analyzed at the outset of my address, without this signifying the abolition or oppression of the ethnic origin, language and culture of the faithful that comprise its jurisdiction, whether these are Greeks or not. And I believe that we are all in agreement on this.”
Archman. Elpidophoros Lambriniadis, Chief Secretary of the Phanar.
http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/2009/03/ecumenical-patriarchate-american-diaspora-must-submit-to-mother-church/
http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/2010/06/greek-orthodoxy-the-ecumenical-patriarchate-and-the-church-in-the-usa/

No, we are not in agreement. And it is just this inability to see the comparison between the claims of Old and New Rome that makes it so.

Just as the situation of the Uniates in America exposed the sectarianism of the “Catholic” Church, so too the circumstances of North America and the founding of the Phanar’s jurisdiction have underlined how ethnic-and parochial-the alleged “Ecumenical” Patriarch had become and remains, who, not satisfied with leaving its innovation on the level of canon, but now elevates its canon 28 myth to the level of dogma. Such problems do not originate in America, nor has America suffered from them alone.

Antioch, the first see of St. Peter and where the disciples were first called Christians, had to fight a prolonged battle with its daughter Constantinople, to become autocephalous in fact as well as name again. For that, the Phanar struck it from the diptychs in 1900.
http://books.google.com/books?id=UPr1ZCxPW6QC&pg=PA287&dq=fortescue+Meletios+Arab+Phanar+1900&hl=en&ei=rdUkTI8qg52WB9fShesC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
As “A clever young Turkish diplomat of Greek origin” stated in 1899 “the head of our nation is not that kingling in Athens, but the Ecumenical Patriarch.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=KjUpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA24&dq=Gelzer+Geistliches+Orient+petit+roitelet&hl=en&ei=WNMkTI_qOtPknAf1naTQBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Alexandria, having been reduced by Constantinople even before it became limited by the Phanar, finally set its own house in order in the same year of 1900: Pope Photios forbade the Phanar from sending a minder, and restored Alexandria’s Holy Synod, now one of the largest in the Orthodox world, and the only continent with NO jurisdictional disunity.
http://books.google.com/books?id=UPr1ZCxPW6QC&pg=PA286&dq=fortescue++Lord+Photios+legate&hl=en&ei=39ckTI63EcL6lwehyuyeAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Patriarch of Jerusalem at the time was Patriarch Damianos, who had to expel Meletios, later Metropolitan, Archbishop, Ecumenical Patriarch and Pope in succession, for his Hellenocentric activities, and his insuborniation to, and indeed treason against, the Patriarch in pursuing them.
http://books.google.com/books?id=zUhpAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA259&dq=Commission+Orthodox+Patriarchate+Jerusalem+Metaxakes+constantinople&hl=en&ei=S98kTLmqIp_hnQeNm43SBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Because he would not take part in the blatant hypocrisy of the omogeneia in excommunicating the Bulgarians in 1872, Pat. Damanios’ predecessor Pat. Cyril was called a “traitor” and “Muscovite,” and was deposed for such a breach of national/ethnic solidarity.
http://books.google.com/books?id=FKQoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA271&dq=Bulgarian+exarchate+Muscovite&hl=en&ei=ENkkTIiOAoaKlwfqyZXDAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Bulgarian%20exarchate%20Muscovite&f=false

Such ultramarist actions against the ancient Patriarch were stopped, because the Church of Russia opposed them and aided the local Church: supplying the chrism to Antioch, secruing the berat for Pope Photios and refusing to recognize the deposition of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem.

So while it is attractive in some circles to dismiss the opposition of “Americanists” to the Phanar’s Ultramarist claims, they stand on solid ancient Orthodox well trod ground in doing so.

I have lots to say on the OP, but right now I’ll speak up for the Romanians.

I take it that you are refering to Moldova and Voivodina (I notice that you do not refer to the Romanian Archdiocese of the Americas) The latter results from the Karlovti Serbian Patriarchate and the Metropolitanate of Transylvania under the Hapsburgs, as does the Serbian Exarchate in Timisoara. The former results from Russia and its Holy Governing Synod taking terriotry (after “abolishing” the Church of Georgia) from the Metropolitinate of Moldavia and Bucovina (which was autocephalous before uniting with the rest of Romania), being returned. Not any different than what happened in Estonia after WWII.