How Katherine Kelaidis Hurts the American Orthodox Church
Unjustified Xenophilia and Abandoning the Great Commission
I’ve had the great displeasure of reading “Xenophobia in the Cloak of Progress: How English Liturgies Hurt the American Orthodox Church” by Dr. Katherine Kelaidis¹ wherein she makes bold claims about the impact of foreign languages in American Orthodoxy, detrimental suggestions for the future of this Church, and fundamental misunderstandings about the nation of America.
She introduces her ideas with a mostly true statement that Orthodoxy in America has primarily grown by 20th and 21st-century immigrants, but follows it up with a series of outrageously naive and damaging claims to reach an uncalled-for “solution” to a problem she herself is inventing.
She calls the immigrant growth of our Church “a part of our collective identity that would be wise to remember as the country sinks further and further into a nativist, xenophobic panic.” In the first place, why should we take this to be a part of our collective identity? Do native-born Americans who have joined the Orthodox Church or been born in it see these immigrants as part of their collective identity? Furthermore, what exactly is it about being from an immigrant background that should be remembered in our identity? Dr. Kelaidis would suggest the use of foreign languages, but is there any reason to believe you must necessarily speak and know the language of your ethnic ancestors in order to embody them and remember your heritage? Notwithstanding, this speaks nothing of the slew of Americans who see their heritage as being distinctly American in orgin, anglophone, and absent of the traits she describes here.
Then there’s the suggestion that nativism is, for some reason, a bad thing. Why must that be assumed or combatted? America is a nation just like Greece is a nation, but I find it hard to believe Dr. Kelaidis would ever suggest that “Greek Liturgies Hurt the Greek Orthodox Church.” Is it unrighteous or somehow wrong for each nation to pray in its local language? She laments and complains about the idea that “to speak a language other than English is to be less than American, to not belong.” Does she not recognize that she herself believes the same but for her own nation? Apparently, to be an immigrant is “a part of our collective identity that would be wise to remember,” but to be an American is not a part of our identity that would be wise to remember. Dr. Kelaidis wants America to be a place where immigrants are and not a nation composed of a common people.
“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”²
These were the words of John Jay, a Founding Father of the United States of America, first Chief Justice of America, and President of the Continental Congress, in the 2nd Federalist Paper entitled “Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence.” What does Dr. Kelaidis understand about America and Americanness that John Jay did not? She says, “America has always been linguistically diverse,” yet does not acknowledge that the prevailing understanding and practice was, historically, that America operated with English as its founding heritage and common tongue. So then, when she speaks of “converts from non-traditionally ethnic backgrounds, the overwhelming majority of them Anglophone,” she makes the critically terrible mistake of thinking that their ethnic background doesn’t subsist in the American native stock of European settlers and descendants of slaves. They are “non-ethnic” to her, a blank slate, with an identity based on something (who knows what it is), while these immigrants have a truly venerable ethnic background worthy of preservation in a foreign land at all costs. How frightening is it that nativism is a problem for America and Americans, but it is an honorable thing for immigrants like Greeks and Russians as if to suggest that Americans are not equally as entitled to their American background and foreigners ought to intrude with their genuine value for their benefit.
“It is a stark reminder that the decision of what language to speak and where and when to speak any given language is not neutral.” You have spoken the truth! To speak a certain language in a certain place is not neutral. You are either looking to live in the country where you reside, or you are looking to pridefully colonize it and form an outpost of your own nation therein. If this is not a neutral decision, why does she go on to suggest that the use of English is bad or hurtful while the use of foreign languages is good and proper? Is this belief true in all Orthodox nations or is it just America, a place with no distinct heritage, linguistic unity, local culture, or value outside of its economic opportunity?
“As some diaspora communities entered their second and third generations, conversations arose around how and if languages should be preserved.” Well then, Dr. Kelaidis, should they? Firstly, I object to the use of the phrase “heritage languages.” English is the heritage language of America. But more to your point, should these foreign languages be preserved? You presume to say yes but do not justify it. You acknowledge the use of English as being of worth for its missionary value but do not dwell on the impact of the rest of your claims. If these foreign languages should be preserved, who will be the missionaries? Will the missionaries be these foreign speakers? Will they missionize in foreign languages or will they switch to English when they leave the Church and back to their foreign language when it’s time to liturgize? Does Dr. Kelaidis even believe Americans should convert to Orthodoxy? After all, their increase would undoubtedly harm the effort to preserve foreign languages since Americans speak English (and, evidently, so do the descendants of these immigrants!). Can Americans be Orthodox at all? Well, evidently, not with their own language! Some people believe that the English language could never be truly Orthodoxy. Let me ask you a question, Dr. Kelaidis: Why should descendants of Orthodox immigrants maintain the languages of their ethnic ancestors?
“[T]o speak English is to be American, and any language other than English is less than American. This position is not only untrue — but it is today an increasingly pernicious view.”
Why is this view pernicious? According to Dr. Kelaidis, it is because America has always been linguistically diverse. Notwithstanding the truth of that claim, it is a red herring. Has America’s linguistic diversity always included Greek? Russian? Romanian? Serbian? Georgian? You might have a point in mentioning American Indian languages like Tlingit and Cherokee, maybe even French or Spanish, but instead, you are using these languages as a scapegoat to justify the continued presence (and even the increase!) of languages that have no history in this nation except for the recent waves of immigrants in the mid-1900s. Meanwhile, the Founders and almost all Presidents understood America’s heritage to be English-speaking:
“If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American .We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.”³
These are the words of President Theodore Roosevelt. You, Dr. Kelaidis, are guilty of exactly what he speaks against. You want to keep these immigrants and their descendants “separated from the rest of America.”
Now, this is a curious thing. She laments xenophobia, the aversion to aliens, but she also paradoxically claims her own stock and kin to be truly Americans. If that’s so, then opposition to non-English languages surely cannot be xenophobia since they are all American or capable of becoming American. The truth is, however, that Dr. Kelaidis will connivingly take advantage of neoconservative principles to push her narrative that anyone can be American at any time, thus decontextualizing American history and culture in a way that advantages her own people while stripping America of its identity. Does she see herself as American in any sense besides being born here? I reckon that she realizes that what she has said is the truth, that Americans ARE English-speaking descendants of a common people, and her resentment at not being from among those people fuels her disdain of the English language and galvanizes her to intrusively invite the expansion of foreign languages. While I believe it’s possible, to some extent, for people not descended from the founding American stock to become Americans, this must occur by assimilation into our language, faith, values, and customs. An English-speaking Hindu is just as far away from being American as a Greek-speaking citizen of the United States.
Americans are English speakers, and this doesn’t change when Americans become Orthodox (in fact, it is impossible to be truly American without being Orthodox, but this is to be discussed at another time). We see proof of this in the life of the honorable Colonel Philip Ludwell III⁴, who was undoubtedly a heritage American. He was an acquaintance of President George Washington and strived to translate the Divine Liturgies and the Confession of Saint Peter Mogila into English. Should he have rather grafted himself onto the foreign identity that hosted him?
I suppose it’s only natural to support your own ethnic kin, and you, Dr. Kelaidis, find yourself to be a Greek, but besides your attack against the American cultural-linguistic heritage, you have also neglected American salvation. You place up a wall that impedes the conversion of souls to our Church, that being foreign languages. You suggest “celebrating the liturgy in languages other than English whenever possible,” not taking into consideration whether or not Americans will be torn away from Christ’s grasp because you have refused to “become all things to all men” (1 Cor 19: 22).
While you admit that the knowledge of foreign languages is declining to such an extent that it requires language programs to maintain⁵, you don’t think that this must naturally result in the adoption of English for the salvation of the souls of these English-fluent children of immigrants born in America, and the generations of Americans who have lived here their whole lives. “Yet in the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue” (1 Cor 14:19). You want the liturgies to be in languages that not even your own people understand. That is the problem. That is the ethnic narcissism infesting your article. That is the nationalist foundation of your understanding. (Oh the irony! Nationalism for me but not for thee!) You are willfully sacrificing the work of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost⁶ for the idolatrous preservation of foreign identity. Does God grow by your suggestion that priests not be ordained who don’t know multiple languages? Has God increased when, in a parish of Greek-speaking Greeks, not a single one of them understands the liturgical Greek being used in the Sacrifice of Christ? “The number of eager ears willing to listen to the message of Orthodoxy in English has never been greater,” says Saint Seraphim Rose⁷, but who will minister to them without holding them under the yoke of foreign languages? How many people have you spoken to who, attending a foreign-language Church, have no conception of the Orthodox belief or practice when they could have faithfully received all of that with comprehension at an English-speaking parish? I have spoken to many, and not just Greeks, but Romanians, Ukrainians, and Serbs. This is not taken into account by you because you view the world in deformed “ideals,” fitting a theory in your head, instead of the lived experience of Orthodoxy in America.
What about the Saints of America? I’ve noticed that Dr. Kelaidis thinks English hurts American Orthodoxy, does she perhaps think the same of Tlingit and Aleut, which Saint Innocent utilized in Alaska?⁸ When that same Saint Innocent wrote to the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate that it was necessary to replace Russian with English⁹, was he wrong? Was it harmful for Saint Sebastian of Jackson to translate and minister in English¹⁰? When Saint Raphael of Brooklyn saw that the children of Arabs no longer were learning Arabic, was it wrong of him to institute English liturgies¹¹ or should he have taught them to speak Arabic to preserve a heritage they have little conception of? Was Bishop Gerasimus of Abydos wrong in his perception that the representatives of the Greek Orthodox Communities in America “see their Church as 𝐚 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚, destined to serve their children who are Americans of Greek descent, with only the English language,”¹² or perhaps was he deluded when he gave a homily stating that God had spoken to him in English?¹³ Was his favoring of English an error?¹⁴ Saint Nicholas Velimirovich of South Canaan taught exclusively in English in the last five years of his life¹⁵, should he have thrown some Russian in there? Was he wrong in saying that it is “a legitimate desire” to have “English to replace national languages in Church services?”¹⁶
Of course, it cannot be ignored that most missionary work in America was done by Russians, Antiochians, and Americans, and not by Greeks. It is possible that this poisonous attitude espoused by Dr. Kelaidis is more deeply rooted in the Greek Archdiocese than we know. After all, Archbishop Meletius Metaxakis established the Greek Archdiocese specifically to be an ethnic Church for the Greeks¹⁷ ¹⁸, contrary to the principles of Orthodox ecclesiology reminiscent of the heresy of phyletism¹⁹. Some of the most notable missionary Greeks are ones who, like the Saints mentioned before, used English, like Elder Theoclitus of Gavelston²⁰, besides the strong and impressive outlier of Elder Ephraim of Arizona whose lack of English usage seems to be primarily established on his difficulty speaking it (although he has disciples engaging in the same missionary work as he did but using the English language)²¹. In any case, the American descendants of Greek immigrants themselves desire to speak and use English and have for a long time. All the way back in 1963, a Greek-American parishioner named Clifford Argue wrote articles in both St. Vladimir’s Quarterly and the Antiochian Word Magazine, calling for the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America to authorize the use of English²². He identifies problems facing the Greek Archdiocese of America as a result of the insistence on foreign languages that you, Dr. Kelaidis, advocate for:
“The Greek Orthodox Church in America, however, continues to insist that only the Greek language may be used in the Divine Liturgy and other services, although permission has been granted for priests to give sermons in English. Because of this policy, the church is faced with the potential loss of some of its life-blood — new young members — because their understanding of the Greek-language liturgy is “unfruitful.” For many it is not enough to merely follow along in a service translation book, and they are leaving the Greek Church to become members of various Protestant denominations.”
Shall we return to the age of apostasy and blindness for the sake of, what exactly, combatting xenophobia? Mythical concerns such as this are embarrassing to even mention, let alone establish policy on.
Your statement that anglophone hegemony in America is a “self-inflicted wound” makes me want to genuinely vomit. It’s disgusting and reprehensible and spits on Americans who have bled and died for this country, its values, and its language. It turns America into an economic colony for the nations these foreigners actually want to belong to. Are we the Orthodox Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ, or are we the loosely connected conglomeration of Eastern ethnicities wayfaring in the West? The simple fact of the matter is that if you want to be Greek, there are two whole countries willing to accommodate you. If you want to be Romanian, there are two whole countries willing to accommodate you. If you want to be Russian, there are two whole countries willing to accommodate you. If you want to be Arab, there are twenty whole countries willing to accommodate you. But if you want to be American, there is only one America. Americans would like to keep their precious nation instead of sacrificing it on the altar of ethnic idolatry.
Nevertheless, there is one thing you said that I wholeheartedly agree with: “The language we choose to speak matters and means something. Let us choose wisely.”
Yes, let’s choose English.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The full and unamended article of Dr. Katherine Kelaidis shall be appended to my own for posterity:
Xenophobia in the Cloak of Progress
How English Liturgies Hurt the American Orthodox Church
Dr. Katherine Kelaidis
12 March 2025
Orthodox Christianity in the United States is an immigrant church. That is to say, it is a church primarily brought to the United States by 20th- and 21st-century immigrants and still largely populated by them and their descendants. It is a part of our collective identity that would be wise to remember as the country sinks further and further into a nativist, xenophobic panic, during which more recent immigrants are being demonized as criminals, including by the sitting President of the United States, and any marker of “foreign” identity has the potential to make an individual the target of harassment by law enforcement, not to mention by their fellow citizens.
This, apparently, includes the speaking of any language besides English in public. A recently signed executive order makes English the official language of the United States. It is an order that is likely to have little practical effect but does send the clear message that to speak a language other than English is to be less than American, to not belong. And that is just the most obvious example: the Spanish language version of the White House website has been shut down, and ICE was recently forced to apologize after taking a Puerto Rican family, including a toddler, into custody after the family was heard speaking Spanish while out shopping in Milwaukee (never mind that Puerto Rico is a US territory, and Pueto Ricans are American citizens).
It is a stark reminder that the decision of what language to speak and where and when to speak any given language is not neutral. As scholars and activists working around questions of colonization, immigration, and identity have long recognized, language choice is powerful and political. This is why the question of language has been a hot topic in Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States for half a century. For most of that time, the debate was one about assimilation within immigrant communities. As some diaspora communities entered their second and third generations, conversations arose around how and if heritage languages should be preserved and, should it be that the heritage language was not being sufficiently preserved, if that failure (and make no mistake, it is a failure) should cause the liturgical language of a parish to shift to English.
In the late 1970s, as more converts from non-traditionally ethnic backgrounds, the overwhelming majority of them Anglophone, began joining the Orthodox Church, the use of liturgical English was presented as essential to missionary efforts and a prevailing attitude arose that a parish that spoke English as its sole (or nearly sole) liturgical and communal language was more open, more welcoming, more “American” than those so-called “ethnic parishes” that allegedly kept people out by stubbornly clinging to their heritage language. While this explanation differs from the diaspora conversation around language, both of these lines of reasoning share a common starting assumption, the assumption that is also central to the current administration’s xenophobic policies: to speak English is to be American, and any language other than English is less than American. This position is not only untrue — America has always been linguistically diverse — but it is today an increasingly pernicious view.
This new reality must become part of the linguistic debate in the Orthodox jurisdictions in America. It is incumbent upon us to challenge the ways in which we have, either intentionally or accidentally, contributed to xenophobia by embracing English as a “default” language and by advancing arguments that call into question the belonging of anyone in the United States who does not use English as their sole or principal language. This begins by celebrating the liturgy in languages other than English whenever possible and unwinding decades of moving towards English as the obvious default. We must revive heritage language acquisition programs in parishes which have specific ethnic diaspora populations. Here the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese’s Greek language programs, often mocked even in mainstream culture, can serve as an excellent model. In parishes where there is no longer a clear ethnic plurality, second language programs should also still be a normal part of parish life. Languages can easily be chosen to reflect the heritage language of the jurisdiction of the parish or a commonly spoken language in the area the parish finds itself.
In the long term, this should also mean that no priest can be ordained in America without proficiency in a second language. This is all to say, that after decades of insisting in the language of assimilation that no non-English linguistic competence was necessary to participate in Orthodox communities in America, it is time to reverse course and make linguistic diversity and a resistance to linguistic assimilation a core part of our identity in the United States.
It is easy, cheap activism to call on our bishops to “say something” in the wake of the growing horrors being visited on America’s recent immigrant communities. A default passing of blame that I have most certainly engaged in. What requires more, and yet is more effective than any episcopal statement could ever be, is to undo the damage that assimilationist politics and xenophobia have done in our own communities, including the internalized xenophobia we have inflicted on ourselves. Our pursuit of Anglophone hegemony is one of these self-inflicted wounds. We can only support our immigrant neighbors by remembering we too are our immigrants and members of the immigrant church. The language we choose to speak matters and means something. Let us choose wisely.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
- Kelaidis, K. (2025) Xenophobia in the Cloak of Progress
How English Liturgies Hurt the American Orthodox Church. Public Orthodoxy.
Conviction prohibits me from directly linking this article. - Jay, J. (1787) Federalist №2, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence. https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-1-10
- Roosevelt, T. (1919) Theodore Roosevelt Papers: Series 3: Letters Sent, -1919; Subseries 3A: Carbon Copies of Letters Sent, 1894 to 1919; Vol. 198, 1919, Jan. 1-Feb. 5. January 1, — February 5. [Manuscript/Mixed Material] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, loc.gov/resource/mss38299.mss38299-412_0184_0456/?sp=120&st=image&r=0.511,0.152,0.417,0.307,0.
- Timeline Infographic: The Life and Times of Philip Ludwell III. https://www.ludwell.org/philip-ludwell-timeline-infographic-2019/
- Kelaidis,K. (2025) Xenophobia.
“We must revive heritage language acquisition programs in parishes which have specific ethnic diaspora populations. Here the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese’s Greek language programs, often mocked even in mainstream culture, can serve as an excellent model.” - Acts 2:1–8
“And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Ghost gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” - Saint Seraphim Rose, Letter 252. 22 Mar/4 Apr 1978. To Andrew Bond. https://www.goldenmouth.org/st-seraphim-of-platina/letters-mcmlxxviii-mcmlxxxii
- The Life of Saint Innocent, Adapted from the English translation of the Act of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church published in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, English Edition, Issue 1, 1978. https://www.stinnocent.net/stinnocent
- Printed in Paul D. Garrett, St. Innocent: Apostle to America (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1979), 275–277. https://www.orthodoxhistory.org/2009/08/25/st-innocents-vision/
“Rumor reaching me from Moscow purports that I wrote to someone of my great unhappiness about the sale of our colonies to the Americans. This is utterly false. To the contrary, I see in this event one of the ways of Providence whereby Orthodoxy will penetrate the United States (where, even now, people have begun to pay serious attention to it). Were I to be asked about this, I would reply:
[A. B. C.]
D. Return to Russia the current vicar and all clergy in New Archangel (except churchmen) and appoint a new vicar from among those who know the English language. Likewise, his retinue ought to be composed of those who know English.
E. Allow the bishop to augment his retinue, transfer its members and ordain to the priesthood for our Churches converts to Orthodoxy from among American citizens who accept all its institutions and customs.
F. Allow the vicar bishop and all clerics of the Orthodox Church in America to celebrate the Liturgy and other services in English (for which purpose, obviously, the service books must be translated into English).
G. To use English rather than Russian (which must sooner or later be replaced by English) in all instruction in the schools to be established in San Francisco and elsewhere to prepare people for missionary and clerical positions.” - Decision no. 4822 of June 22, 1910, Archives of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. Quoted in Bishop Sava, p. 36., Retrieved from The Life of Saint Sebastian Dabovich. https://arizonaorthodox.com/saints-north-america/st-sebastian-jackson-san-francisco/
“Concerning the Hieromonk Sebastian, His Grace Tikhon of the Aleutians, in his communication to the Holy Synod of June 2, 1902, no. 74, wrote that the appointed Hieromonk, during his service in the Mission, exerted considerable efforts towards … acquainting non-Slav Christians (primarily Episcopalians) in America with the teachings of the Orthodox Church, for which purpose he wrote and published, from his meager resources, several books in English, and translating official documents of the Administration into English.” - St. Raphael of Brooklyn: Life of the Saint. Proclamation on the Glorification of Our Holy Father Bishop RAPHAEL. https://sttikhonsmonastery.org/st_raphael_life
“Children who did not speak Arabic were already going to non-Orthodox churches where Sunday school classes were conducted in English. Bishop Raphael saw the absolute necessity for using English in worship and in education for the future progress of the Syro-Arab Mission.”
“He became fluent in English, and encouraged its use in church services and educational programs.” - Chamberas, P. ( 1997) Bishop Gerasimos: The Spiritual Elder of America. Chapter 4, “Recollections of My Life.” Letter 15 Oct 1970 to Patriarch Athenagoras. Page 118.
“Your All-Holiness,
Please accept what follows most respectfully as the actual confession of a son to a father.
For eighteen years, I have been serving the Greek Orthodox Church of Christ in America. At the suggestion of His Eminence, our Archbishop, Your paternal love elevated me to the office of bishop. A noble task but difficult. For this reason, I always avoided it. Duty-bound, I study the needs of the present and attempt to foresee the future of the Church in this country of dramatic progress in all the directions of life.
Your All-Holiness knows through personal contacts the development of our Church during the last twenty years. The Clergy-Laity Congress has demonstrated that the composition of the members of the Church has been reversed. The representatives of our Communities, now ninety percent American-born, see their church as a Church in America, destined to serve their children who are Americans of Greek descent, with only the English language and with the certainty that only fifty percent of them will be married with young men or women of Greek descent.
Worship in the Greek language does not hold for them the attraction it once had for the first-generation children of the immigrants. They want to hear English, to pray in English, and to realize that they are well-informed and conscientious Orthodox Christians.
Last year, when the two-hour Christmas Service ended, the choir sang “Silent Night.” The choir director, with relief, told the priest: “Father, now I realized that we are celebrating Christmas!” This means that the entire service had been done merely mechanically. It gave them nothing like a message of Christmas. How harsh and sad this is!
Many spouses among those who have inter-faith marriages would probably choose to espouse sincerely the Orthodox Faith. Many other Christians as well are seeking to approach our Church. Yet, with only the Greek language, they cannot understand her spiritual life in all of its grandeur. They see only symbolic gestures, which remain mere symbols “sealed by seven seals” that cannot touch the depth of the soul.
This type of worship satisfies only a few persons. Certain people do rise up to defend the Greek language. Not because they know well the content of worship in Greek, but simply because they want to be considered heroes, perhaps so that “they may not be persecuted for the sake of the cross of Christ.”
It is true, of course, that prudence and vigilance are needed in charting the direction we travel. Yet, the voice must be heard: Our Church is not only for the truly admirable Greek pioneers or for those who even now come from Greece. The Church is for our American-born children and grandchildren, for all of America, if not for all the world.
If English is not introduced soon in good measure into our worship, our Church shall remain for the majority of our children and our friends in America a lifeless formality, worthy of some sympathy, but never a serious expression of Christian faith that renews lives. Our Church will thus not be worthy of the attention and the respect she deserves. Nor will our Church be able to assume her proper place in the spiritual life of this country.
The responsibility is great. No escapism is justifiable. The voice of the leaders must be direct, clear, and sincere in defense of the truth. This truth, which I know from experience, is accepted by ninety-nine percent of those who are complaining today. But they are complaining because they fear the complete abolishment of the Greek language. And they are seeking to find out the truth in all of its breadth and depth, in faith and in love, in grace and in truth. They want to hear that the English being introduced is not meant to dishonor the Greek language but rather to help our children hold on to the living and immortal Greek spirit, as expressed in the Orthodox Christian Faith and worship.
Your All Holiness, please accept the supplication of one of your spiritual sons. You have done so much for the Church. Your work, however, will remain incomplete if you do not give the appropriate attention to the missionary Church of America. Raise your Patriarchal voice in defense of our Church in America. It is the only voice that can and must be heard with the appropriate attention so that it may bring about the fruit of love, of peace, the fruit of the Spirit, for which you have sacrificed your entire life.
Beseeching your blessings upon these matters, I conclude…” - He worked at the Holy Cross Hellenic College. There was a controversy among the students about the use of English in services. Some students were adamantly opposed to it, while others supported it. When it came time for the bishop’s sermon on Sunday, Bishop Gerasimos stood on the soles and looked at all the students. Then he said in his quiet, meek voice, “Yesterday, God spoke to me…”
He was silent for a moment….
“…In English.”
Then he turned and entered the sanctuary to continue the liturgy. - Papadopoulos, S. (1998) Tribute to a Wise and Humble Abba. https://www.goarch.org/-/gerasimos-papadopoulos-bishop-of-abydos-the-wise-abba-of-america
“How quickly he came to understand the problems of the new world is obvious also in the fact that only several months after his arrival in America, he dealt with courageous realism the great problem of Greek Orthodoxy in America, the problem of the Greek language. He not only spoke about it, but he also wrote about it, and declared openly that if we want to teach Orthodoxy to our children, if we want them to want to come to our Church, and especially if we want them to be consciously Orthodox Christians, we must speak to them in English.” - The Serbian Patericon, 18 March. Life of Our Holy Father Nicholas “the New Goldenmouth,” Bishop of Ohrid and Zhicha (+1956)page 220.
“Being all things to all people, Nicholas published articles in Russian for the God-seekers at Saint Tikhon’s, but he taught solely in the English language, at a time when very few courses were offered in that language.” - Namee, M (2018). St Nikolai Velimirovich on Orthodoxy in America & Its Future. Homily of Saint Nicholas Velimirovich. https://www.orthodoxhistory.org/2018/07/18/st-nikolai-velimirovich-orthodoxy-america-future/
“Alas, the last of these old Orthodox generations is rapidly passing away. Their sons and grandsons, and their daughters and granddaughters are now coming to the field. And this new generation is American born. They speak good English but little or no Greek, Serbian, Russian, Rumanian, Syrian or Albanian. And no wonder: They attended American schools, many of them served in the US army, they have grown in conformity with the American standard of living, their hearts are not divided between two countries. They are naturally Americans, and they intend to remain American. Accordingly, they have some demands respecting the Church of their fathers.
They want English to replace national languages in Church services. They desire to hear sermons in English. This is a legitimate desire. Our wise priests of every national Orthodox Church in this country are already preaching in both English and in their respective national tongue. They are in a difficult position at present, for they have on one hand to be considerate of the elderly (elderly generations of Moms and Pops) who do not understand English well, and on the other hand they are willing to respond to the desire and need of the younger generations. In this matter I think evolution is better than revolution, for the Church is the mother of both the old and the young.
The time may not be far off when there will be a united Orthodox Church in America, which will include all the present Eastern national Churches in this country, a Church with one central administrative authority.” - Metaxakis, M. (1908) ACT Of the Lifting and Abrogation of the Formerly Granted Patriarchal and Synodical Tomos of the Date, March 8, 1908 concerning the Churches in the Diaspora. http://orthodoxhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/1922-03-01-EP-Praxis-re.-Diaspora-English-translation.pdf
“For this reason, our Modesty […] was obliged to conduct a synodical investigation and study anew the question of the dependency and administration of the Orthodox Communities in the Diaspora, […] belonging under the supreme jurisdiction and responsibility of the our Most Holy, Apostolic, and Patriarchal Ecumenical Throne. For reasons of a then timely necessity and for good order, She deposited the Greek-speaking [communities] under the governance of the Holy Synod of the Kingdom of Greece as a trustee; [but] having discussed this need in Synod, we have formed the judgement and have decided […] our Holy Great Church of Christ, by Her inviolable right to manage and conduct by Her own authority the canonical authority […] lifts and abrogates what was granted in the formerly stated Patriarchal and Synodical Tomos, dated March 8, 1908, […] concerning the assignation to the Church of Greece of the right to govern the Greek Orthodox Communities in the diaspora, […] and She reinstates immediately complete and intact Her ruling canonical rights, and immediate supervision and governance” - G. Bartas, “Chez les Grecs Orthodoxes,” Échos d’Orient 68 (1908), 54–55. Published in English as “Who Had Jurisdiction Over the Diaspora in 1907?” Orthodox History (August 12, 2022), https://www.orthodoxhistory.org/2022/08/12/who-had-jurisdiction-over-the-diaspora-in-1907/.
“The report concludes, basing itself on the holy canons — which are not quoted — that all the Greek Churches and communities abroad, not included in the canonical territory of an autocephalous Orthodox Church, depend on the Ecumenical Patriarchate. For the good success of this project, the Commission was of the opinion that the Ecumenical Patriarchate should write to the autocephalous sister Churches to ask the Ecumenical Patriarchate for formal consent for the appointment of hierarchs and clergy in charge of their annexes abroad. In this case, the Ecumenical Patriarchate would have no right to refuse; it would be, in short, a pure formality.
His All Holiness Patriarch Joachim III disagreed. He proposed that, in Europe at least, things remain as they are, with communities everywhere continuing to depend on their own churches. As for the Greek communities in America, they would report directly to the Holy Synod of Athens.” - Kaleb of Atlanta (2021) Phyletism: The Devil’s Demonic Division. https://medium.com/@kalebatlantaprime/phyletism-the-devils-demonic-division-1fcde839a411
“We renounce, censure and condemn phyletism, that is racial discrimination, ethnic feuds, hatreds and dissensions within the Church of Christ, as contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the holy canons of our blessed fathers which support the holy Church and the entire Christian world, embellish it and lead it to divine godliness.”
“[Strict] phyletism demands territorial organization of the Church according to an ethnic, racial, or cultural basis so that within a given geographic territory, there can exist several Church jurisdictions, directing their pastoral care only to the members of specific ethnic groups. Nowadays, such beliefs are not explicitly proclaimed, but it is in practice by those who invade the jurisdictions of other canonical Churches without a blessing to care for their own ethnic flock.” - Glorified in America: Laborers in the New World from Saint Alexis to Elder Ephraim, Part III. Historical Vignettes, Father Theoclitus (Triantafyllidis) of Gavelston.
- Fr Menas, Superior of Saint Paul the Apostle Orthodox Monastery. Open Letter 10 April 2024. https://www.saintpaulsmonastery.org/post/april-2024-letter-from-father-menas
- Argue, C (1963) Language of the Liturgy. Retrieved from “A Plea for English in Greek Orthodox Services in 1963.” https://www.orthodoxhistory.org/2025/03/17/a-plea-for-english-in-greek-orthodox-services-in-1963/
