ROC History (from the very beginning)

This paper consists of editing together various snippets regarding Church History I had written during the process of my program of studies at the Seminary of St. Catherine. It begins with St. Peter, “the Rock”, and follows the flow of Orthodoxy to the East, and ‘ending’ with the “ROC” or the Roman Orthodox Church in the Unites States. Please forgive any inaccuracies as they are not intentional, but the result of one who is still a fallible student of the Truth.

The Biblical word for ‘church’ (Greek – ekklesia, Hebrew -- qahal) refers to an ‘assembly’ of God’s people. The Israelites gathered together in assembly in the desert before the Lord, constituting a ‘church’. The Southern Tribes gathered together by the Babylonians and marched off into exile, constituted an ‘assembly’ of sorts, an ‘Israelite Church in Exile’. In the Gospels, the Apostles and disciples who gathered around Jesus constituted an ‘assembly’ or ‘church’.  A ‘church’ was also constituted when 120 disciples of Jesus were assembled in the Upper Room on the Day of Pentecost. When the Holy Spirit descended upon these disciples, and they were empowered to carry on Jesus’ work on earth, the Church was born.

On the day of Pentecost, St. Peter preached to those who had ‘gathered’ outside of the building where the disciples had been ‘baptized’ by the Holy Spirit. His sermon regarding Jesus as the promised Messiah was so dynamic that two thousand joined the growing ‘Church’ or gathering together of God’s people. A short time later St. Peter and St. John were on the way to the temple to pray.

Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour. And a certain man lame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple; who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms.
Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, “Look on us”.  And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them. Then Peter said,  “Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.” And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God. And all the people saw him walking and praising God: and they knew that it was he which sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple: and they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him. (Acts 3:1-10)

Peter gave a sermon putting the healing of the beggar in context of the power of Jesus, Who He is, etc., and more people were added to the Church, bringing the total to around 5,000! What did these people do when they joined the Church, when they gathered together in the Name of our Lord Jesus? Acts 2: 42 says that they continually devoted themselves to the Apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
The Apostles’ teaching was bringing the message of Light into a world darkened by ignorance and sin.  Many people, however, were comfortable in the dark, lashing out at the Light. In his Gospel, St. John writes about this, when he says that the Light shines in the darkness but the darkness could not overpower it, The darkness could not shut it out. And the darkness did try.
A Deacon, Stephen, was murdered. At various times, early on, St. Peter was attacked and jailed. James, the Brother of the Lord, was pushed off the top of the Temple and died in a heap on the Temple floor. Persecution of this Christian Church was the ‘politically, and religiously, correct’ thing to do. A particularly active and zealous persecutor was a Pharisee by the name of Saul. Present at the murder of Stephen, Saul set about arresting and otherwise harassing the growing Church. Many Christians fled the Jerusalem area to escape Saul’s persecution. Eventually Saul, himself, was converted by Jesus speaking to him from Heaven.

  Saul’s name was changed to Paul and he became as zealous to spread the Light of Christ as he was previously zealous to extinguish it. I have always found it rather ironic that he forced many Christians to flee the Jerusalem area and then set about preaching the Gospel to them in other countries.

The Church focused on the teachings of the Apostles; but the darkness attacked even from within. Instead of keeping to the Apostles’ teachings and the Sacred Scripture, some people sought to ‘modify things a bit’, perhaps to make Christianity more palatable to certain philosophies. Various ‘alternate doctrines’ (heresies) were advocated but were ‘nipped in the bud’ by the leadership of the church, meeting in Council. To clarify exactly what true doctrine (based upon Apostles’ teaching and the Scripture) was, Church leadership, again in Council, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, (1) specified which writings were to constitute what we call today the New Testament and (2) formulated statements of faith which summarized correct (i.e., orthodox) belief (e.g., the Apostles’ Creed and, later, the Nicene Creed).


Whether attacked from without or from within, the Christian Church continued to grow. Christians, for the most part did not compromise their faith with the prevailing pagan religion. This caused them to run afoul of the main super power of the time, Rome.

The emperor Nero gave many Christians the opportunity to shine forth in the darkness. He smeared some of them with pitch and tar, impaling them on stakes and lit them like torches to give a warm glow to his garden parties in the imperial gardens. Around this time Saints Peter and Paul were martyred. The emperor Domitian, interpreting literally Christ’s words on the Kingdom of God, sent to Palestine for the Lord’s kinsmen, in order to condemn them as revolutionaries; but he dismissed them as madmen when he saw they were neither threatening nor very impressive. Persecution of Christians became part of Roman law under the emperor Trajan who personally had the Bishop of Antioch, Ignatius Theophorus thrown into the arena and devoured by wild beasts.

At the dawn of the fourth century under Diocletian, Christian churches were burnt to the ground, Christians who held public positions were stripped of their office and ’the blood of martyrs flowed like a river’. Through all this and much more, the Christian Church continued to grow, accounting for around 10% of the subjects of the Roman Empire, including Diocletian’s wife, Prisca, and his daughter, Valeria. In 305 Diocletian went mad and abdicated. A change was in the air.

In 311, Galerius suffered a fatal illness and ascribed it to his treatment of the Christians. He invited the Christians to pray for him, and, along with his colleagues Constantine and Licinius, issued an edict of toleration. The darkness could not conquer the Light so, at least in this instance, it folded. The Church now had breathing room.

In 323 Constantine was proclaimed sole ruler of the Roman Empire and restored to the Christian communities property that had been confiscated by the civil authorities even introducing into the army a monotheistic form of prayer.
In 330 Constantine built Constantinople, on the site of old Byzantium by the Bosphorus, filling it with churches and other monuments, also nicknaming it “New Rome”, as if to make a separation between him and the paganism of “Ancient Rome’.

In 325 Constantine called Church representatives together to deal with a dark infection attacking the Church, called Aryanism which, among other things, claimed Jesus was created by God the Father and thus was inferior to Him. Jesus was the first of created beings and, therefore, had not existed eternally. This First Ecumenical Council inserted a few lines into the Creed to clarify what the true status of Jesus is:
“And [I believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, eternally begotten of the Father. God from God, light from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father, Through Him all things were made.” All the Fathers present signed off on the Creed, proclaiming it the ‘exact expression of the Church’s doctrine on her divine Founder.’ The proponent of Aryanism, Arius, and two of his allies refused to sign the Creed and went into exile. Darkness would have nothing to do with the Light. The pseudo-Christian sect, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are steeped in Aryanism, also believing Jesus was a created being.

At the end of his life Constantine was baptized a Christian. When he died in 337, his sons, Constantine II, Constantius and Constans began to persecute paganism in the Empire. Their persecution of paganism caused many pagans to band together secretly, like the Christians had done years before, and wait for a suitable opportunity to break out into the open. By 361 all of Constantine’ sons had died. Constantine’s nephew Julian, who hated his cousins and their religion. became emperor and, with the support of his soldiers, set about reviving paganism, melding it with elements of Christianity, such as choir-singing, sermonizing, and collections for the poor.

Perhaps he thought he could mix darkness and light, but, no matter how hard he tried to stamp out Christianity, he failed. After a reign of only twenty months he died of a wound to his liver he received in a battle with the Persians.

It is reported that as Julian lay dying, he filled his hand with blood from his wound, and, shaking the drops of blood into the air as though Christ stood before him, he cried with his dying breath; “Thou hast conquered, Galilean!” The Light outshone the darkness.

Between the time of Julian’s death and the ascension of Theodosius the Great to the throne, there arose a movement started by Arian wannabes, “Semi-Arians”, who sought to push a compromise between Aryanism and the true Orthodox Faith. Constantius (Constantine’s son), and Valens ( Emperor after Julian) favored the Arian-flavored Christianity, even persecution Orthodox-adherents.

In 381 the Orthodox Emperor, Theodosius the Great called another council to deal with the latest Arian outbreak. This Second Ecumenical Council: Proclaimed the pronouncements of the First Ecumenical Council to be the true Orthodox Faith and also condemned the teachings Of Macedonius regarding the Holy Spirit. Where Arius said the Father created the Son, Macedonius said that the Son created the Holy Spirit. To the Creed was added language stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son and that He partakes of the same divine nature and essences as the Father and the Son.

Looking at Arius and Macedonius shows us the truth of the Scripture verses:

There is a way which seems right to a man, but the end of it is the ways of death. (Proverbs 14:12); and also:
So because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. (Rev 3:16)

Attempting to mix the warmth of the Light with the frigid coolness of the world’s darkness results in a tepid mishmash which creates more problems that it solves.
Macedonius’ teachings pretty much died out after the Second Ecumenical Council, as did Aryanism, but his teachings cropped up again centuries later when the Pope decided to change the Creed, stating the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son. The addition of ‘filioque’ (“and the Son”) resembled Macedonius’ teaching of the Son creating (and therefore being superior to) the Holy Spirit. This dark scourge, which began as a pebble under Macedonius, became a high wall dividing the Church.

The Second Ecumenical Council also opposed the heresy of Apollinarianism, which began to spread around the year 362, a year after Julian ascended the throne. This is an interesting heresy, as heresies go. It states that the Incarnate Logos did not have a “rational” soul like the rest of us humans. The God-Man took the material body and, in place of the “rational” soul, imposed  His divinity. The Fathers were furious at this idea, saying that, if Christ did not also have a rational soul, He would have “left the noblest part of us unhealed”, adding, “that which He did not assume, He did not heal.” A good argument, but the Council did not come up with a clear and succinct statement of the full divinity and full humanity of Christ.

 Nestorius, the Archbishop of Constantinople, in attempting to resolve this ‘duality’, held that in Jesus there were two separate natures: one was Christ, the son of Mary, and the other one was Christ, the Son of God. He thought Mary should be called “Christotokos” ( Mother of Christ”) and not “Theotokos”  (Mother of God). This has cropped up in recent centuries in pseudo-Christian sects which hold that at the Baptism of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God took up residence in Him and then left Him at the Crucifixion.

Nestorius’ teaching began to spread and Emperor Theodosius II, in the year 431, convened the Third Ecumenical Council to meet the threat of this spreading darkness. The Council resolved that the Church confesses (acknowledges) one Christ, one Son, one Lord, Who is at once both God and Man, Who was born of the Father before all ages, and, at the appointed time, became incarnate through the Virgin Mary. Nestorius would not submit to the decision of the Council and instead retired into exile, dying in 440. Some of his followers, persecuted by the Orthodox, found refuge with the Persians, who welcomed them as enemies of the Byzantine Empire.

I have personally found Nestorius’ teaching alive and well in the ‘theologiy’ of contemporary Protestants who refuse to use the title “Mother of God” when referring to Mary, since, they say, God has no Mother. The much preferred title is the Nestorian “Mother of (Jesus) Christ”. As I told one minister, “Theotokos” does not so much speak of Mary as it does describe her Son. It stresses that her Son, Jesus, is God. When they deny “Theotokos”, they deny the divinity of Jesus.

Nestorius held that the bond between the two nature of Christ was a loose one. There were two men, Eutychius and Discorus, who held the bond was extremely close, so close, in fact, that, after the Incarnation of the Son and Logos, not two but one single nature should be spoken of, since, essencially the divine nature either absorbed the human one or fused with it. This heresy is called Monophysitism. To face this dark teaching, the Fourth Ecumenical Synod was convened at Chalcedon in 451, in the reign of the Empress Pulcheria. The decree of this Council reaffirmed the pronouncements of the Third Synod concerning the Naturality of Jesus, adding that the two natures are united in the single Person of the Logos, not only “without distinction and without separation,” but “without confusion and without change” as well. One nature is neither annihilated nor altered by the other.

Instead of solving a problem, for many, the decisions of the Synod of Chalcedon created one or more. The Armenians, at a local Synod in 491, rejected the decisions as being Nestorian. The Copts, Abyssinians and the Syrian Jacobites broke away from the Church, starting Monophysite communities rather that admitting to two separate natures in one Person, which was the Orthodox Christian view. So in 553 the Emperor, Justinian the Great, convened the Fifth Ecumenical Synod at Constantinople. The Synod sought to draw back the Monophysites into the Orthodox Church by condemning certain theological works that were deemed Nestorian in nature (no pun intended).

Another attempt to reconcile the Orthodox and the Monophysites was made by the Emperor Heraclius (611-641), who came up with the following formula:
“There are two nature in Christ, but one activity.”  A later edict rephrased it as “two natures, but one will.” This theory was called Monothelitism, I don’t know how the Monophysites reacted to it, but the Orthodox theologians pronounce it contrary to Scripture and contrary to sound thinking. I didn’t find them calling the Emperor a heretic, which would also be against sound thinking, but they did fight the idea. The Orthodox reaction was: If Christ had two natures, then He should also have two activities. His divine nature would have the activity of working miracles, rising from the dead, and ascending into heaven. His Human nature would be seen in what is called nowadays the activities of daily living.

In 680, under Constantine Progonatus, the Sixth Ecumenical Synod was convened at Constantinople to consider the issue. Monotheletism was condemned and the Synod resolved that as is Jesus Christ there are two natures, unconfused, unchanged, inseparable and indivisible, so there are on Him two natural activities and two wills, which do not strive against each other, since the human will subordinates itself to the all-powerful divine will.

Emperor Leo, the Isaurian (717-741), observed what he thought was a disturbing practice on the rise in the Empire. Devotion to the Saints was becoming increasingly popular along with the celebration of Saints’ days and the veneration of images of the Saints. He feared the potential  abuses of this practice would result in the distortion of the spiritual character of Christianity. Jews and Mohammedans were also criticizing this ‘idolatrous’ practice. The Emperor decided to carry out his own reform and hastily sent out a proclamation in 730 commanding the total removal of all images. (This is not unlike the “Supreme Court’’ of the United States banning prayer from schools).

Church Fathers protested. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Germanus, retired rather than go along with the Emperor’s proclamation. John of Damascus published some rather fiery ‘apologies’ regarding the right use of images and even the Pope of Rome, Gregory II, sent a letter of protest. Leo stood firm.

Leo’s son, Constantine Copronymus (741-775), continued his policies and even going so far as to convene his own “Ecumenical Synod’, but, unfortunately neglecting to invite the five Patriarchs. This Synod, of course, pretty much ‘rubber-stamped’ the Emperor’s pet policies. Many clergy succumbed to this splash of darkness. Many, of course, did not. Many of those who did not follow the Emperor’s commands were blinded or had their noses cut off.

In 787, under the regency of the Empress Irene, the Seventh Ecumenical Synod was convened at Nicaea. Representatives from all jurisdictions were present. The resolutions or pronouncements of this Synod struck what might be called ‘the golden mean’ in the use of images. It laid down that the figure of the Cross and holy images may be represented on various items, in houses or in public roads; especially figures of Christ, Theotokos, angels or holy men and women. It was observed that such representations spurred people to think of the originals, and deserve respect and adoration (dulia) but must not be adored with that worship which is due God Alone (latria).

In the middle of the 9th Century, Patriarch Photius initiated large scale missionary labors in these regions by sending out the two brothers Constantine (Cyril and Methodius), first to the Khazar State north of the Caucasus (this was largely unsuccessful) and then to Moravia (Czechoslovakia) in 863.
The Prince of Moravia, Rostislav, wanted his people to be able to hear and understand the Word of God in their own language. Cyril and Methodius were perfect for the job as they had developed an alphabet, adapted from the Greek, which later was called Cyrillic (after St. Cyril).
Their missionary labors were not in vain, however, for their disciples were successful in Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria. Led by St. Clement of Ochrid), the missionaries were successful and in 869, Tsar Boris of Bulgaria himself was baptized. The Bulgarian Church grew rapidly and about 926, under Tsar Simeon, an independent Patriarchate was established there, recognized by Constantinople in 927 (although later suppressed), and the Bulgarian Church became the first national Slavic Church.
Missionaries penetrated into Russia during this period and the Russian Princess Olga was converted to Christianity in 955, although the effective Christianization of Russia really ‘took off’ with the conversion of Olga's grandson, Vladimir, in 988.
The following story, based upon Russian tradition, concerns the adoption of Orthodox Christianity as the official State Religion. Grand Prince Vladimir of Kiev decided that an official religion would be beneficial for his country. This was certainly understandable. Religion has long been a unifying and pacifying force within a country. In the present day, for example, a missionary I know is encouraged by the Mexican government to go throughout the frontier areas of Mexico and set up mission churches. The government even supplies building materials for the church building. The missionary told me the government acknowledged to him that the people praying together would spend less time complaining and, potentially, rebelling. Prince Vladimir was unsure which religion to choose. He had four from which to choose: the Islam of the Volga Bulgars, the Judaism of the Khazars (on the lower Volga), the Latin Christianity of the Germans, or the Orthodox faith of the Greeks. Accordingly he sent envoys to the various regions to enquire of their faiths to observe, experience, and to make a report to him.
Upon their return, the envoys reported the following:

When we journeyed among the Bulgarians [of the Volga region], we beheld how they worship in their temple, called a mosque, while they stand ungirt. The Bulgarian bows, sits down, looks hither and thither like one possessed, and their is no happiness among them, but instead only sorrow and a dreadful stench. Their religion is not good. Then we went among the Germans, and saw them performing many ceremonies in their temples; but we beheld no glory there. Then we went on to Greece, and the Greeks led us to the edifices where they worship their God, and we knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth. For on earth there is no such splendor or such beauty, and we are at a loss how to describe it. We know only that God dwells there among men, and their service is fairer than the ceremonies of other nations.... [From the Russian Primary Chronicle].

After receiving the report, Vladimir, interestingly enough, went to war with the Byzantine Empire laying siege to the Greek city of Kherson. He promised to accept Christianity if he was successful in this campaign and after the capture of the city, he did, in fact, embrace Orthodoxy and was given in marriage Anna, the sister of the Byzantine Emperors Basil and Constantine. Returning to his capital of Kiev, Vladimir ordered that all pagan idols be destroyed. The people were “strongly encouraged” to renounce paganism, which they did, and embraced the Orthodox faith and received Baptism in 988. From this date Russia became officially Christian.
With the conversion of Vladimir (later canonized by the Russian Church) Orthodoxy spread rapidly and already, within fifty years, the Russian Church had her first canonized Saints, the martyred brothers Boris and Gleb. In 1051 the first Russian Monastery (The Monastery of the Caves) was founded in Kiev by St. Anthony. In 1037, Theopemptos was consecrated Metropolitan of Kiev and all but two of the Metropolitans of this period were Greeks, appointed by Constantinople. (The first Russian Metropolitan was Hilarion in 1051 {coincidentally enough only nine hundred years before my birth}, and the other Clement in 1147). To this day, the Russian Church still sings in Greek the greeting to a Bishop, Eis polla eti, Despota, in recognition of the debt owed by the Russian Church to Greek Byzantium.

In 1237 the Kievan State was invaded by the Mongols, who ruled until 1480. During this period it was the Church that single-handedly kept alive national consciousness, much like what was done by the Greek Church later under the Turkish yoke. The primary See of the Russian Church was moved from Kiev to Moscow by St. Peter, Metropolitan of Kiev, and henceforth ceased to be the city of the chief Hierarch.

After the Council of Florence in 1440, Constantinople had accepted union with the Roman Catholic Church and therefore Russia could not accept a Metropolitan from there; so in 1448, a council of Russian Bishops elected their own Metropolitan and from this date the Russian Church has reckoned her independence. In 1453 Constantinople fell to the Turks. I think it is interesting that within a few years after uniting with Rome, Constantinople lost her independence. It ceased being the literal capital of the historic Roman Empire and surrendered her unique relationship with God and His Church. With the fall of Constantinople, the Russian Church remained the sole free branch of Orthodoxy. Men began to see Moscow as the Third Rome. (That is (1) Rome, (2) Constantinople, (3) Rome). The Grand Duke of Moscow assumed the titles of the Byzantine Emperors — Autocrat and Tsar — the earthly protector of Orthodoxy and the head of the Russian Church was raised to the rank of Patriarch (the first being Patriarch Job), ranking fifth after Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.
The Russian Church assumed an exalted place within Orthodoxy but still had its problems. As did the early Church in the Hoy Land.
In the mid-17th Century there occurred in the Russian Church a major split due to the liturgical reforms of Patriarch Nikon (1605-1681) who attempted to correct certain corruptions in the liturgical books and liturgical practice. The result was the splitting off of the Old Believers, who resisted the changes, as well as their persecution, and this schism has endured to the present day. I believe there is a community of Old Believers in the Woodburn-Mount Angel area of Oregon today. The leaders of the Old Believers, including the Archpriest Avakkum, were burned at the stake and Nikon himself suffered persecution, since the Council of Moscow, which met in 1666-7, endorsed his reforms, but deposed him from his Patriarchal Office because of his intemperance and arrogance.
A third major event which was to have a profound effect on the Russian Church, was the abolition of the Patriarchate by Tsar Peter I (the Great) in 1721. The Patriarch had died in 1700 and Tsar Peter refused to allow the appointment of a successor. Accordingly, in 1721 he issued his “Spiritual Regulations”, and the Russian Church was placed under an uncanonical Synodal System. In this system, a Synod of twelve members, drawn from the Bishops, Abbots and secular Clergy appointed by the Government ruled the Church. However, all meetings were attended by a government functionary, the Chief Procurator, representing the Tsar, and all decisions had to be approved by the Sovereign. At the same time monasticism was severely restricted and later in the Century more than half the monasteries were closed by Empress Catherine II (the Great — 1762-96) and their lands confiscated.
This Synodal Period, which lasted until 1917 with the Fall of the Monarchy, and the re-establishment  of the Patriarchate by Tikhon, Metropolitan of Moscow, who was elected Patriarch by the All-Russian Council of that year. The Synodal period was a period of spiritual low for the Church, but it was not without a few bright spots. Missionary activity, always a strong feature of the Russian Church, expanded throughout Siberia and Central Asia, eventually reaching Alaska.

For the Orthodox Church in America, a key year is 1905. It was on December 13, l905 that Father Aftimios Ofiesh arrived in New York. As he stood on the dock, contemplating his past and the new life that awaited him in a new and strange land, the young priest turned to the East. With tears in his eyes, he muttered, "poor, wretched Syria." The next day he presented his credentials and a letter of introduction from Bishop Arsanius to his new superior Bishop Raphael Hawaweeny, the Bishop of Brooklyn. The Bishop, who was under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox authorities in the New World, had come to North America in 1895 at the request of the Syrian Orthodox Benevolent Society to minister to the needs of the Syrian Orthodox in the United States and Canada.
So successful were his efforts, that the Russian Orthodox authorities established the Diocese of Brooklyn to serve the Arab Orthodox communities under their care. Indeed, the consecration of Bishop Raphael on March 12, l904 was the first consecration of an Orthodox bishop to take place in the Western hemisphere. Bishop Raphael immediately recognized the abilities of the young priest and appointed him Dean of St. Nicholas Cathedral in Brooklyn.
On February 17, 1915, Bishop Raphael died . Metropolitan Germanos (of the Syrian Orthodox Church) and his followers began a well orchestrated campaign to gain control of the widowed Diocese by securing his election to the vacant see. Those remaining loyal to their Russian Orthodox hierarchs refused to accept the election of Germanos, and began to consider alternative candidates as they gathered in Brooklyn for the funeral of the late bishop. Refusing to discuss the issue until after the burial of Bishop Raphael, Father Aftimios finally agreed to meet with several leaders of the Diocese shortly before his return to Montreal. At this important meeting all agreed to reaffirm their loyalty to their canonical Russian Orthodox superiors. Several of those present suggested that they unite to secure the election of either Father Aftimios or Archdeacon Emmanual Abouhatab as a means to prevent the capture of the Diocese by the supporters of Germanos. However, Father Aftimios announced his refusal to seek the episcopacy and returned to his pastoral duties. Thus the Archdeacon became the leading candidate of the pro-Russian or "Russy" faction within the Diocese.

Despite the continuing efforts of his supporters to persuade him to actively seek election to the vacant see, Father Aftimios steadfastly refused to become a candidate. Once Father Aftimios agreed to meet with Metropolitan Germanos to discuss a possible solution to the disunity that plagued the Syrian Orthodox faithful in North America. The Metropolitan offered to persuade the Patriarch of Antioch to send a bishop to America to help him consecrate Aftimios to the episcopate, provided he would renounce his loyalty to the Russian Orthodox hierarchy in America and place himself and his diocese under the Patriarchate of Antioch. However, Father Aftimios refused to participate in such an uncanonical action or to renounce his Russian Orthodox superiors and Metropolitan Germanos' efforts ended in failure. Finally, Father Aftimios agreed to meet with Archdeacon Abouhatab in Malone, New York to discuss the situation. Although Father Aftimios remained steadfast in his decision not to seek election to the vacant see, Archdeacon Emmanuel announced his decision to withdraw from consideration for the episcopate to support the candidacy of Father Aftimios.

Meanwhile, hoping to find some way to unite the Syrian Orthodox under the jurisdiction of the Russian bishops in America, the Holy Russian Synod delayed the election of a successor to Bishop Raphael for two years. During this crucial period Bishop Alexander Nemelovski, the Russian Orthodox bishop of Alaska, provided episcopal ministrations for the widowed Diocese of Brooklyn, with Archdeacon Emmanuel Abouhatab and father Basil Kerbawy as his chief assistants. Finally, realizing that the followers of Metropolitan Germanos would never return to Russian Orthodox jurisdiction, Archbishop Evdokim, the chief Russian hierarch in the New World, reported to the Holy Synod of Russia that thirty-four of the forty-one priests in the Diocese favored the election of Father Aftimios to fill the vacant see. With the approval of the Synod of the Russian Church, Archbishop Evdokim, assisted by Bishop Alexander of Alaska and Bishop Stephen (Dzubai) of Pittsburgh consecrated Father Aftimios in St. Nicholas Russian Orthodox Cathedral in New York on May 13, 1917. Significantly, the followers of Metropolitan Germanos sent over fifty telegrams to the leaders of the Brooklyn Diocese in an unsuccessful campaign to prevent the consecration of Aftimios.

Reluctantly accepting the tremendous problems that faced the successor to Bishop Raphael, the newly consecrated hierarch set out at once to reorganize the Diocese of Brooklyn. He established a diocesan council consisting of the clergy and lay representatives of the twenty-eight parishes and one mission under his jurisdiction. He also instructed each congregation to elect officers and to form parish councils under the leadership of the parish priest. He also began a series of visitations to the parishes of his Diocese. In each community, he attempted to secure approval to his plan of organization and to regain the allegiance of those who had left his jurisdiction to follow Metropolitan Germanos. Despite the severe difficulties that he faced in his effort to halt the growth of the pro-Antioch or "Antacky" faction, he always found time to meet with the youth to exhort them to remain faithful to Orthodoxy. Where possible, the energetic bishop organized Bible study groups and laid the foundation for the training of Sunday School teachers and choirs. So successful were his efforts that Metropolitan Platon, the head of the Russian Orthodox hierarchy in North America, elevated him to the rank of Archbishop in 1923.

Four years later a Charter was created by the Russian metropolia officially establishing a Church with the jurisdiction of North America. The purpose of this charter was to create an American Church, in which all of the warring Orthodox jurisdictions could find unity and brotherhood. After World War One, people from Orthodox countries rushed to America, bringing their faith and traditions with them. They also brought the rivalries and prejudices they had from “the old country”. The Russian metropolia, then, sought to unite these people with the focus on the Orthodox faith and not on ethnicity. In 1927, Archbishop Aftimios Ofiesh, was made Patriarch of The Holy Eastern Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church of North America (THEOCACNA).
The new Primate wrote of the need to unite Orthodox people in America under one ecclesiastical banner.

    With a possible three million of even greater number of Her communicants residing in North America, the Holy Eastern Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church should be one of the major religious bodies in America. That it is not is due solely to the failure of its responsible leaders to come together as one Orthodox Catholic body for the organization of the Church in this country…
It would seem that, given unity and uniformity of faith, teaching, rite, and practice, Orthodoxy in America ought to present a most edifying example of that Unity for which all Christian bodies are so loudly calling and for which they are so blindly seeking. On the contrary, there is no central organization to which all the Orthodox of all racial, national, or linguistic derivation in America yield obedience. There are seven nationalities represented in American Orthodoxy, and these are divided into eighteen distinct groups of churches without coordinating organization, and almost without any pretense of harmony or cooperation among them…
Orthodoxy in America, unlike that in any previously existing Orthodox Province, is made up of people of all languages and from all political, racial, and ecclesiastical allegiances within the Church. It is not a homogeneous body of people pf one language, race, or nation. Only two things are common to all Orthodox in America – the fact of their Orthodox Faith, and their residence in this country. In other particulars their interests, thought, feelings and prejudices are diverse and, too often, mutually antagonistic. It is not practical for all of them to be under the discipline of Bishops of any one foreign Orthodox national Church. Aside from the difficulty of a multiplicity of languages and dialects, the racial and national prejudices and antagonisms are too strongly felt to make such an existence harmonious…
More than half the Orthodox in America… are the American reared and educated children of the Orthodox immigrants. These young people and their children are to be the Orthodox America of tomorrow. They know little and care less about the racial and national prejudices and jurisdictional quarrels of Europe. Those things are very foreign and strange to their American training and interests. A Church that bases its claim to their membership and allegiance on the language, nationality, or racial prejudices of their grandfathers will mean nothing to them. They rightly demand a Church that is concerned primarily with their own conditions and problems in America rather than with the politics of the Balkans, Greece, Russia, or Syria. That an American Church should include all those nationalities on the common basis of their Orthodoxy and American residence is natural and fitting. That it should then look to some foreign national church for the government and jurisdiction over them all as Americans is absurd, unnecessary, and most embarrassingly inconvenient. The formation of an American Synod of Orthodoxy would meet the natural and proper expectation and demand of the American children who are to be the Church of the future.

The idea was a good one and, at least on a theoretical level, did find support from the other Churches. But pride and the desire to maintain a separate ethnic identity prevented the Eastern Churches from recognizing THEOCACNA. They pressured the Russian metropolia, who after being fractured by a schism, withdrew its support of THEOCACNA. Support was withdrawn from the new Church, but it still was officially the canonical Church for America. Eastern Churches, by way of a lawsuit, were able to take possession of THEOCACNA’s Cathedral, in the hopes of stamping out this new wine preventing it from bursting the ‘old wineskin’ of ethnic prejudice.
The jealousy of many from the Eastern Churches towards THEOCACNA reminded my of the Church of Philadelphia in the book of Revelation.

(Rev 3:7-13)  And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth: I know thy works. Behold, I have given before thee a door opened, which no man can shut: because thou hast a little strength and hast kept my word and hast not denied my name. Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I will also keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon the whole world to try them that dwell upon the earth. Behold, I come quickly: hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. He that shall overcome, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God: and he shall go out no more. And I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and my new name. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.

THEOCACNA had a little strength, and it remained faithful to the dream of American Orthodoxy, bringing the Orthodox faith to America for Americans.
The continued division of the Syrian Orthodox between the supporters of the Russian Orthodox bishops and those who wished to affiliate with the ancient see of Antioch became the dominant theme of the episcopate of Archbishop Aftimios Ofiesh. Unfortunately, at the same time the effectiveness of the Russian hierarchy in America continued to decrease as they became involved in the many problems caused by the overthrow of the Czar and the victory of Communism in their homeland. Eventually, the Russian Orthodox would become so involved in their own affairs that they would be unable to assist Archbishop Aftimios in his effort to maintain the unity of his flock. As a result, the Archbishop would seek his own solution to the problem of Orthodox disunity in America. His attempt to found an independent American Orthodox Church was never completely fulfilled and the Archbishop would lose credibility as an Orthodox leader by his decision to violate the traditions of his Church when he took a wife. Thus the episcopate of Archbishop Aftimios Ofiesh would end in 1933.
The decision of Archbishop Aftimios to marry in violation of the traditions of the Church that he had served faithfully for thirty-five years led to the loss of support of many. He made a statement that God had directed him to marry and he awaited a summons to an ecclesiastical tribunal which never was held contrary to the Canons.
Deserted by all but a few, the Archbishop spent the remaining years quietly with his wife and their son, Paul. Moving first to a small apartment in Wilkes-Barre, the Ofiesh family survived through the generosity of a few persons in Montreal, Canada, who sent regular contributions to their former Archbishop. However, the life of the retired hierarch was far from easy. A year after their marriage, a case of tuberculosis forced his wife Mariam to seek treatment at a county sanitarium. A short time later Paul, their son, required surgery. Finally, after living for a few years in New Castle, Pennsylvania, the Ofiesh family moved to Kingston, Pennsylvania, where Mariam found a position in 1938 with the State Employment Service. Although he made one unsuccessful effort in response to the pleas of a few supporters from Allentown, Pennsylvania, in 1937, to return to active leadership in the Orthodox Church, he spent the remaining years of his life in semi-retirement. He died on July 24, 1966, a few months before his eighty-sixth birthday. Significantly, he left instructions that he should be buried quietly and without clergy.

Although it was unrecognized, THEOCACNA continued for the next 70 years as the canonical Eastern Orthodox Church in America. In 1984, a Western Rite of THEOCACNA was created. This original Western Rite was called the “Roman Orthodox Church”. Unlike the Eastern Rite, this Western Orthodox Benedictine Apostolate was tasked with bringing Orthodoxy to Americans. Its apostolate was limited to the Archdiocese of Baltimore under Abp Denis Garrison.
In 1989, ROC became an autocephalous jurisdiction by the Synod of THEOCACNA.
In the late 1990’s THEOCACNA changed its name to OCCNA. (This was necessitated after two “Bishops”, not allowed to join THEOCACNA sought to take control of it, using its name on the internet for various illegal activities.) The name change did seem to work, at least for a while, but eventually it appeared necessary to retire the historic jurisdiction. So it was up to Roc to carry on the vision of St. Aftimios Ofiesh.
Abp Dennis Garrison, as a result of the stress of the recent attack on THEOCACNA by those two Bishops, decided to retire, but did participate in the election of a new Primate who would bring ROC into the 21st century. The new Primate (Primate II) of Roc was Bp David Prestridge. Under Metropolitan David, ROC moved forward to evangelize America through its Roman Orthodox Benedictine Apostolate (ROBC), maintaining its ecclesiastical focus on the Apostolic Canons of the early Church and rooting its doctrine in the first seven “Ecumenical” Councils.
Metropolitan David retired and was replaced in ministry by Metropolitan William Warneck,  who worked tirelessly in strengthening the Church at her center by emphasizing the spirituality of the clergy.  Upon his retirement, Metropolitan William was succeeded by Metropolitan Robert Russell, and the Church experienced a  miraculous growth spurt, with a restructuring of the Seminary, and clergy inquiries from as far away as the Philippines and the African continent.
 The Roman Orthodox Church continues to move forward to evangelize the Western World through its Orthodox Benedictine Apostolate. As it has for the past fifteen years, the ROC continues with its ecclesiastical focus on the Apostolic Canons.  The later canons often were adaptations of earlier canons, as required by the Church to deal with specific circumstances. An example of this is the issue of the married Episcopate. Not only was the married Episcopate accepted in the early Church, it was normative, that is, it actually was the standard discipline and celibacy was the exception. Circumstances forced the developing Church to later move toward a celibate and monastic episcopate (and to do so was within the Church’s ecclesiastic rights but, as circumstances have changed, allowing us the opportunity to return to the Apostolic traditions, we in the ROC feel the obligation to do so).
“Hold fast to those traditions we have learned, both the oral and written.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
On issues of doctrine and dogma, we are rooted in the first seven councils. In that Undivided Church, the doctrines were clarified, and we accept them as such.  We are traditional in that we do not accept new or redefined doctrines. We are Orthodox. On issues of Church ecclesiology, as stated previously, we refer back to the Apostolic Canons, recognizing the synods’ responsibility and the historic patterns of the Church to adapt them to meet current circumstances (always returning to the original Apostolic Tradition when circumstances allow).



Resources:

Due to the rather fluid nature of the internet, some sources may  no longer be accessible.

(1) St. Catherine’s Seminary: Articles related to Church History and Ecclesiology, from American Orthodox Church newsletters.
Western Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Independent Movement
The Orthicon, No. 51, May, 1996 http://www.romanorthodox.com/x/seminary/articles/8a.html

(2) Writings of Saint Aftimios Ofiesh
“PRESENT AND FUTURE OF ORTHODOXY IN AMERICA IN RELATION
TO OTHER BODIES AND TO ORTHODOXY ABROAD”
BY His Eminence, Aftimios, Archbishop of Brooklyn. The Orthodox Catholic Review,
Vol. I, No. IV-V, April-May, 1927 http://www.romanorthodox.com/x/seminary/articles/8a.html

(3) Roman Orthodox Church History (From ROC website)
http://www.romanorthodox.com/x/seminary/articles/8c.html

(4) An article listed in the forum of the website www.romanorthodox.com

(5) Saint Patriarch Tikhon - His Missionary Legacy to Orthodox America
www.roca.org/OA/90/#[9]

(6) “East and West and the Sea of Lies Between”  by Joseph Mahomond Swaydyn
(Originally a term paper for Miami-Dade Community College, Wolfson Campus.)
http://www.romanorthodox.com/x/seminary/articles/8b.html

(7) The Life Of Archbishop Aftimios Ofiesh
(From THEOCACNA website)