So in list form, this would be:

1. An association of Orthodox Christians
2. Living in a definite locality
3. A temple (which I take to mean a regular worship space)
4. Part of a diocese
5. Under a diocesan bishop
6. Under a priest appointed by the bishop

This, I think, is what we typically think of when we hear “parish.” If you take away one of those elements, is there still a parish? The most dispensible of those elements might be the priest — if you have a community of Orthodox Christians under a diocesan bishop and using a regular worship space, isn’t that a parish? But today we might call that a “mission,” rather than a full “parish.” In times past, such an arrangement probably fits into the category of a “proto-parish.” I tend to think of a proto-parish as being even more vague than the modern “mission,” because you could (in my view) have a proto-parish that wasn’t under a bishop.

I would also note that the issue of parish geography is one that some Protestants also grapple with: eg., the Netherlands Reformed Church, which I discuss briefly here: http://easternchristianbooks.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-is-church.html

Bishop and faithful does seem to be a good basis for defining an Orthodox community. Many Alaskan parishes went years without a priest and didn’t always have a dedicated church building (especially in the early decades of the Mission), but they still considered themselves Orthodox and an Orthodox community. Parish as geographic jurisdiction seems to fill in the gaps here.

The situation with former Uniate parishes is that the Alaskans were baptized (if uncatechized in many cases) Orthodox Christians. The former Uniate catechumens were in the odd no man’s land of the catechumenate where you are not fully Orthodox, yet, but you would be buried Orthodox were you to die prior to baptism/chrismation/reception. Perhaps in situations like this either “proto-parish” or “Orthodox community” would be appropriate.

On a related note, have you read Nicholas Ferencz’s book *American Orthodoxy and Parish Congregationalism* (Gorgias Press, 2006)? It’s a fascinating study.

Have you listened to Vera Shevzov’s 2009 lecture at SVS, “Sobor, Sobornost, and the Problem of the Laity”? She discusses the nebulous concept of “parish” in pre-Revolutionary Russia. Here’s the link:

http://ancientfaith.com/specials/st._vladimirs_seminary_summer_conference_2009/dr._vera_shevzov_associate_professor_of_religion_at_smith_college

For our purposes (the study of early American Orthodox history), I think your two conditions are quite reasonable — a bishop and parishioners. A priest is (or should be) automatically connected to a bishop, and so would fall under that heading. I would propose that the other factors I listed (building, name, regular services, etc.) are important in helping us determine whether, in fact, there were actual “parishioners.” This matters most when there isn’t a resident priest — when we’re talking about a fledgling parish.

According to the canons (and the Orthodox dogma that they reflect) the bishop defines a parish. The only constraints on him are those imposed by his synod and primate, which are expressed nowadays by the Church Statute/Constitution.

For instance, the Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church:
http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/ustav/xi/
“1. The Parish shall be a community of Orthodox Christians – clergymen and laymen united at a church.
The Parish shall be a canonical unit of the Russian Orthodox Church under authoritative supervision of the Diocesan Bishop and guided by an appointed rector.
2. The Parish shall be formed by voluntarily consent of the believing citizens of Orthodox confession who have come of age and with the blessing of the Diocesan Bishop.
For obtaining the status of the legal entity the Parish shall be registered by the state bodies in the manner prescribed by the legislation of the country where the Parish is located.
The boundaries of the Parishes shall be determined by the Diocesan Council.
3. The Parish shall began its activities upon the blessing of the Diocesan Bishop.
4. The Parish in its civil and legal activities shall observe the canonical rules, the inner by-laws of the Russian Orthodox Church and the legislation of the country of its location.
5. The Parish shall allocate the money through the Diocese as a compulsory measure for general church needs in the amount established by the Holy Synod and for the needs of the Diocese – in the manner and amount established by the bodies of the Diocesan Authority.
6. The Parish in its religious, administrative, financial and economic activities shall be subordinate and accountable to the Diocesan Bishop. The Parish shall carry out the resolutions of the Diocesan Assembly and of the Diocesan Council and the instructions of the Diocesan Bishop.
7. In the event that some members split off or all members of the Parish meeting withdraw from the Parish, they shall not be entitled to claim any rights to the property and assets of the Parish.
8. In the event that the Parish meeting takes a decision to withdraw from the hierarchic structure and jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Parish shall no longer be recognized as belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church. That will entail the cessation of the activities of the Parish as a religious organization of the Russian Orthodox Church and will deprive it of the right to property, which belonged to the Parish by the right of ownership, use or on any other legal basis, as well as the right to use the name and symbols of the Russian Orthodox Church in its name.
9. The parish churches, prayer houses and chapels shall be organized with the blessing of the Diocesan Authority and shall maintain the order established by the law.
10. The bodies of the Parish administration shall be the Rector, the Parish meeting, the Parish Council and the Auditing commission.
11. The brotherhoods and sisterhoods shall be founded by the parishioners only with the consent of the Rector and with the blessing of the Diocesan Bishop. The brotherhoods and sisterhoods have an objective to attract the parishioners to caring and working for maintaining the churches in the appropriate state, to participating in works of charity, social ministry, religious and moral education. The brotherhoods and sisterhoods at the parishes shall be under the authoritative supervision of the Rectors. In the exceptional cases the Statute of a brotherhood or sisterhood approved by the Diocesan Bishop can be submitted for state registration.
12. The brotherhoods and sisterhoods shall begin their activity upon the blessing of the Diocesan Bishop.
13. In exercising their activities the brotherhoods and sisterhoods shall be guided by the present Statute, the resolutions of the Local and Bishops’ Councils, the decisions of the Holy Synod, the decrees of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, the decisions of the Diocesan Bishop and the Rector of the Parish, as well as by the civil statutes of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Diocese and the Parish, at which they are established, and by their own Statute, if the brotherhoods and sisterhoods are registered as legal entities.
14. The brotherhoods and sisterhoods shall allocate through the parishes the money for general church purposes in the amount established by the Holy Synod; for the diocesan and parish needs – in the manner and amount established by the bodies of the Diocesan authority and the Rectors of the parishes.
15. The brotherhoods and sisterhoods in their religious, administrative, financial and economic activities shall be subordinate and accountable to the Diocesan Bishops through the Rectors. The brotherhoods and sisterhoods shall abide by the decisions of the Diocesan Authority and the Rectors of the Parishes.
16. In the event some members split off or all members of the brotherhood or sisterhood withdraw, they shall not be entitled to claim any rights for the property and assets of the brotherhood and sisterhood.
17. In the event that a general meeting of the brotherhood and sisterhood takes a decision to withdraw from the hierarchic structure and jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church, the brotherhoods and sisterhoods shall no longer be recognized as belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church. That shall entail the cessation of the activities of the brotherhood and sisterhood as a religious organization of the Russian Orthodox Church and shall deprive them of the right to property, which belonged to the brotherhood or sisterhood by the right of ownership, use or on any other legal basis, as well as the right to use the name and symbols of the Russian Orthodox Church in their name.”

The Statute of the OCA:
http://www.oca.org/DOCstatute.asp?SID=12&ID=10
“Section 1 The Parish
The parish is a local community of the Church having at its head a duly appointed priest and consisting of Orthodox Christians who live in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church, comply with the discipline and rules of the Church, and regularly support their parish. Being subordinate to the Diocesan Authority, it is a component part of the Diocese.
Section 2 Governing Statute
The organization and administration of a parish are subject to this Statute as adopted at the Second All-American Council of October 19th-21st, 1971, or as amended at any subsequent Council.
Section 3 Parish and Diocese
The parish is established by decision of the Diocesan Bishop within whose diocese it is constituted and after the local group petitioning him has satisfied the Bishop that it is self-supporting and stable and that its charter and by-laws are consistent with canonical requirements and the Statute of the Church. Every parish charter or set of by-laws must provide the mechanics for implementing all decisions of the All-American Council. No charter or by-laws of a parish shall be effective unless approved by the Diocesan Authority. According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, the Bishop is the head of all parishes which constitute his diocese. He appoints parish clergy, has the obligation and right of regular and special visitations to the parish, approves received reports on parish life, and in case of conflicts and disorders within the parish, takes all necessary measures consistent with the Holy Canons. ”

The Greak Orthodox Archdiocese
http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/pdf/2007-Regulations-Amended.pdf
ARTICLE 15
PARISH
Section 1: The Parish is the local eucharistic community of the Church in a given
locality; organized under the jurisdiction of the Archdiocese whose ecclesiastical
authority is its canonically consecrated Hierarch. Locally, the Parish is headed by a
canonically ordained and duly appointed Priest. The assignment of such appointed
Priest shall bind the Parish to the Archdiocesan Regulations, Uniform Metropolis
Regulations and Uniform Parish Regulations with the same force and effect as if the
same were formally approved and adopted by the Parish.
Section 2: The aims and purposes of the Parish are to keep, practice and proclaim
the Orthodox Christian Faith pure and undefiled.
Section 3: Parishes shall be governed in accordance with the holy canons, the
Archdiocesan Charter and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and, as to canonical
and ecclesiastical matters, by the decisions of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate and the Eparchial Synod of the Archdiocese. In accordance with the
Charter, the Parish shall express the life of the Church in the local community according
to the Orthodox Christian Faith and Tradition, sanctifying the faithful through the Divine
Liturgy and the Holy Sacraments. It shall edify the religious and ethical life of the faithful
in accordance with the Holy Scriptures and the decrees and canons of the Holy Apostles
and the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church, as interpreted by the practice of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Section 4: The diakonia (ministry) of the Parish will include proclaiming and teaching
the Gospel in accordance with the Orthodox Faith; sanctifying the faithful through God’s
grace in worship, the Divine Liturgy and the other sacraments; enhancing its
parishioners’ spiritual life; and adding to the numbers of the faithful by receiving persons
into the Church through instruction, baptism and/or chrismation. In addition, the Parish
shall establish educational and philanthropic activities to foster the aims and mission of
the Parish and to edify its parishioners in the Faith and ethos of the Church. The Parish
shall also engage in such inter-Orthodox, ecumenical and interfaith activities as are
consistent with the policies of the Archdiocese.
Section 5: The Parish shall conform faithfully to the worship, sacramental life,
doctrines, canons and discipline of the Church. It shall also adhere to the Archdiocesan Charter, the Regulations and all Hierarchical encyclicals.
Section 6: Any non-conformance with the foregoing shall be dealt with in
accordance with the provisions of the canons. The Archbishop, upon the
recommendation of the local Metropolitan, shall have the authority to revoke the
ecclesiastical charter of a Parish, if, in his judgment, there is sufficient cause for such
action. In each such case, notice of the revocation, stating the cause for such action,
shall be forwarded to the Parish Council in writing.
Section 7: The Parish shall furthermore abide by the decisions of the Clergy-Laity
Congresses irrespective of whether it was represented thereat, the administrative
determinations of the Archdiocesan Council, and such interim legislation as may be
adopted between Congresses by the Archdiocesan Council.
Section 8: Each Parish shall be known as the (name) Greek Orthodox Church of
(locality). Each Parish shall use the authorized logo of the Archdiocese and the name of
the respective Archdiocesan district/Metropolis on its stationery and publications, in accordance with the Archdiocesan Graphics Standards Manual.”

What is interesting here is that according to these Statutes, for one reason or another or several, most pre-1921 parishes-including Cathedrals-would not qualiy for parish status.

Of course, we cannot nor should we project these present day definitions back to evaluate these early parishes. We would need to see if there were any definition of a parish on the basis of the Spiriitual Regulation of Russia, the Constitution of the Rum Mileti-i and the Organic Statute of the Church of Greece.

In absence of that, we have to go on ascertain the satisfaction of two conditions 1) an Orthodox bishop (laying aside the condition that he have canonical jurisdiction) and 2) parisioners (bishops without flocks existing, but being a problem). As long as no. 2 is connected with no. 1, and no. 1 is satisfied with the existence of no. 2, we have a parish. Of course, the problem is seeing a century or more now after the fact how 1 and 2 were satisfied with each other.

Right now, I’m working with Alexei Krindatch on the forthcoming Atlas of Orthodox Churches in America. I’m responsible for, among other things, the historical census data. In 1906, the US Census Bureau’s Census of Religious Bodies listed 334 Greek Orthodox parishes, but ten years later, the Census reported just 87. The Census explains this “by the adoption of a somewhat different basis of presentation — in 1906 the different communities were reported, but in 1916 only those churches which were well organized were reported.” In all other respects (including the number of church edifices), the Greeks grew significantly in the preceding decade.

I do think there are a lot of gray areas, even, to some extent, up to the present. Seminary chapels, monastery churches, chapels — these aren’t usually classified as “parishes.” In Wichita, Bishop Basil has a freestanding chapel at his chancery which has daily Matins and Vespers and is attended by a small number of regular worshippers. No one would call it a parish, though. (The difference between it and some of the communities of 100 years ago is that the early communities’ members weren’t members of any other parish, whereas the attendees at Bp Basil’s chapel all are members of regular parishes.)

I think you can make a strong argument that any cohesive community of Orthodox Christians under a bishop, and not affiliated with another parish, may constitute a parish. I don’t think we can go so far as to call a community of catechumens an “Orthodox parish.” But once those two main elements are satisfied — (1) cohesive community of Orthodox and (2) hierarchical affiliation — a parish may exist, even without any other characteristic. Where I THINK you and I differ, Isa, is that you seem to suggest that these communities are all parishes, whereas I think that once the threshold is met, we must look at them on a case-by-case basis.

What do you think?

“Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.”

Since there is, outside of statutes, only a canonical definition of a diocese, i.e. a bishop and his flock, and a synod, i.e. bishops acknowledging one of their number as their primate, and no definition that I can think of for parish according to the canons, it is, except for the regulations a Church (i.e. an Autocephalous Church, and the powers that it has devolved to its branches) have issued, a naturally ad hoc construction in Orthodoxy.

We can say with all assurance that any group that a bishop calls a parish, is a parish. That includes any for whom the bishop has consecrated a Church, gratned an antimens, sent a priest, etc. is a parish. It would include a group which the bishop has taken under his care, even if just as catechumens. Hence the Vilatte parish in WI was a briefly a parish from the time it was received into the catechumenate by Bp. Vladimir. That it went vaganti doesn’t affect that, anymore than the parishes which were taken into the unia did not obliterate the fact that they had been Orthodox parishes. Indeed, that is how/why many returned. St. Alexis Toth’s parish of St. Mary, received around the same time, began as an Orthodox parish the moment Bp. Vladimir agreed to receive them, not when he came to take the parish in person.

That would also include layman with a standing connection with a bishop/Holy Synod: the 1st Charter of the Russian American Company included reference to the agreed rules, the first of which mentioned as a purpose of the Company the setting up of a mission to the natives and to provide for it. By the last Charter (written in part, it is believed, by St. Innocent of Alaska) placed the Russian American Company within the Diocese of Sitka under Bp. Innocent, and empowered/required the company and its officers to act on its behalf. Hence, when Gov. Kostrimitrinov, former governor of Fort Ross (and who, in the absence of a priest, lead reader services in its Chapel) and resident agent of the Russian American Company and Imperial Vice Consul in SF involved himself in the formation of the Orthodox Society of San Francisco, in 1864, he involved the oversight of St. Innocent, now bishop of Yakutsk and within a year of the formation of the SF, a member of the Holy Governing Synod of Russia, per the acts of the HGS in reference to the Charter of the Russian American Company and Russian law.

Prior to this, although the chaplancy of the Russian Navy (from whom, according to the Charter, all Russian American officers had to come) ministered to the Orthodox in SF, holding services in Kostrominitov’s home in 1859, there was no parish but only a proto-parish, as there is no evidence that the persons considered themselves as a group or corporate body, anymore than when the various jurisdictions gathered at Navy Pier in Chicago to celebrate the Baptism of Rus’ in 1988 made Navy Pier an Orthodox Parish. Only when ad hoc arrangements congeal into a corporate identity that a parish is born.

When a parish is a top down initiative it’s easy to see it’s a parish. Bottom up initiatives are harder, but I think intention together with some kind of outreach to a bishop or his perceived representatives together with a building, a board, etc. is the threshold.

The Brotherhoods common in Poland-Lithuania following the Unia could also be seen as an example. Orthodox believers seeking to maintain their faith in adverse circumstances. I believe they reached out to Constantinople for assistance and oversight, even if this was often minimal or nominal. Still, the Orthodox impulse is always to establish contact, oversight. There is intent followed by some form of action.

Where that might get murky is when people don’t necessarily understand who they should and should not be reaching out to as an example of “Orthodox oversight”. One can imagine village laity of one nation not knowing whether Orthodox bishops of another nation are in fact Orthodox. Same can be imagined regarding various schismatic groups, Old Calendarists, etc. The messiness at the time should be allowed to stand, regardless of what the future made more clear, e.g., a Greek church under Moscow that later went under Athens and then under the EP and then perhaps under an Old Calendarist group. Schism and canonicity can be in the eye of the beholder – i.e., OCs don’t see themselves as being in schism – and this, too, should be acknowledged.

Several years before the first Orthodox church was founded in San Francisco in 1867-68, the Orthodox of the city had formed an association. I’ve seen some date the founding of the San Francisco parish to the 1850s, based on this association. But the association wasn’t connected to a bishop (or a bishop’s agent, a priest). It was a proto-parish: it had some of the basic elements of a parish, but not enough to be called a full parish.

Likewise Chicago in the 1880s: you have a community with officers and very occasional church services, and possibly even a building and a name. But with no hierarchical oversight, the association was not a parish. And it didn’t see itself as being a parish — it seemed to recognize that hierarchical oversight, on some level, was necessary.

New Orleans is less clear, simply because we have less information about its very early years. The New Orleans parish had a resident priest by 1867 (Fr. Stephen Andreades), and given the connection to the Greek consulate, I’m inclined to think that Andreades was sent by the Church of Greece (probably the Abp of Athens himself). If that’s true, then the New Orleans founding may be more accurately dated to 1867, rather than 1865 (when Honcharenko made his visit). But without more detailed information, it’s hard to say.

What do you think? How far must hierarchical oversight go to be considered sufficient?

However, while an individual’s “status as an Orthodox Christian is not necessarily predicated on [his/her] affiliation with a particular bishop”, a parish’s status as a specifically Orthodox parish is. We simply have to be careful about reading into history what we know later happened – the community chapel became an Orthodox parish. I’m sure examples can be found of such communities never becoming a parish or that went into schism, etc.

The Russian Orthodox Cathedral of the Holy Virgin Protection in New York’s East Village is the former pro-cathedral of the Metropolia and the OCA. It considers itself the direct continuation of St. Nicholas Cathedral on E. 97th St. in Manhattan. St. Nicholas was built by donations from Tsar St. Nicholas II (7,500 rubles) and others, and then Bishop St. Tikhon of the Aleutians and North America laid the cornerstone of the temple on On May 22, 1901. “After the Bolsheviks assumed power in Russia, Soviet controlled elements of the Church of Russia challenged the “Metropolia”, which had declared itself temporarily independent in the early 1920s over ownerhip of St Nicholas Cathedral. By New York State Appellate Court action the ownership of the cathedral was awarded to the Bolshevik controlled “Living Church”, in 1926. The majority of faithful left the Cathedral and re-organized under its current name. At first, the parish used an Episcopalian church on Houston and Chrystie until it was condemned. 17 years after being dispossessed of the beautiful Cathedral of St. Nicholas, the parish raised enough funds to purchase the Olivet Memorial church on East 2nd Street, its present home. The iconostasis of the parish has St. Nicholas as its ‘second patron’ on the opposite side from its patronal icon of the Pokrov.