Talk:Eastern Orthodoxy in Guatemala

Third party verification

This article appears to use purely Orthodox websites as the citations for the information within it. This is hardly objective and the article should be deleted or seriously edited to make it more reliable. –58.106.230.99 (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a lack of any third party verification of the self-reported membership estimates for either the group which was accepted into the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in 2010 or the group which was accepted into the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch in 2013. Claims about 4–8% of the population of Guatemala would likely be reported in the Guatemalan press but the claims are not reported and do not have spinoff information. In 2013, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor cited a 2010 Pew survey that estimated that 95% of the population of Guatemala professed a Christian affiliation, 4% professed no affiliation, and 1% professed other affiliation. The 95% who professed a Christian affiliation were broken down into 59% Catholic and 36% Protestant (95% = 59% + 36%). Orthodox was not mentioned in 2013 citation of 2010 report, but the two corporate absorptions happened in 2010 and 2013 which were after the cutoff date for inclusion in the 2010 report.

References

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

From my checking for the Religion in Guatemala article I suspect the numbers are off by by well over an order of magnitude. However I also suspect they are from a group that is likely underrepresented in surveys being poor, rural, and speaking Spanish as a second language. BTW the Syriac numbers seem to increase each time a new article is published, much like those fish that increase in size with each retelling by the fisherman. --Erp (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Erp: I agree, many of these Maya may be excluded from surveys by the logistics of conducting a survey in isolated villages and by language the surveys may use. For example, I read in the methodology of an unrelated Pew survey that the questions were available only in English and Spanish – if you did not understand either of those two languages then you were excluded from the survey. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't heard these specifics, but they are consonant with the types of difficulties faced in getting good numbers. The Mayans have long been a suppressed ethnic group in this region, their culture and language repressed and outcast from the political mainstreams in Guatemala. Many have thus retreated geographically as well as socially, and live away from cities in the poorest, most remote, and least developed areas of the country. It would be interesting to know why the questions were available only in English and Spanish, if, for example, that was done by government regulation. There is a predisposition in officialdom not to want to know numbers, or anything else about them, a kind of pro-active forgetting. This is not uncommon anywhere for society's castoffs. Evensteven (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Evensteven: no, the questions were available only in English and Spanish on a different survey by Pew in the US not in Guatemala. The point was that surveys only people who can speak the language of the survey can respond to the questions – in guatemala the surveys would likely be in Spanish. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but among the Mayans of Guatemala, there are significant percentages that do not speak Spanish, nor English. They speak Mayan, and that in itself is suppressed, at least to a degree. It's one of the ways they struggle to maintain their ethnic identity. Evensteven (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Evensteven: I agree with you. Spanish is the official language of Guatemala, i.e. of education – if the children attend school they learn Spanish. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. From what I've heard, many Mayans live in areas where education is not provided. In addition, some of them may resist what education is available as it may also attempt cultural and political indoctrination. Whether or not political leaders there are leftist at any given time, they are all aware of some of Soviet Russian educational methodology and how it can be used to political advantage. The government is activist about getting and holding control. Evensteven (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Giron group

A 2005 history page purportedly by the Society of Clerks Secular of Saint Basil mentions Giron but not the purported 100,000+ people. orthodoxwiki:Society of Clerks Secular of St. Basil does not mention Giron or the purported 100,000+ people, moreover, it does not even have a stub article about Giron – which I would expect for someone who was responsible for something notable. orthodoxwiki:Timeline of Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic relations mentions that "over half a million Guatemalan Indians of the "Orthodox Catholic Church of Guatemala" (OCCG), a branch of the "Orthodox-Catholic Church of America" (OCCA), are received in their entirety," but only cites a 2010 press release. A late 2012 flyer self-publicized a figure of 200,000 people. During a late 2012 presentation at Hellenic College Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, an Orthodox missionary described that this "church counts its faithful in the 100s of thousands" in a group spread over 300 Mayan villages in Guatemala and southern Mexico, with 52 parishes in Chiapas, Mexico; so, that figure seems to describe Maya in a cross-border region separrated by a national administrative boundary. I wonder if this is related to Zapatismo?

OCCA was self described, in 2002, as a non-profit organization in Indiana which "does not own any property nor does it have any employees."

There was (or is?) a different organization, that Giron's group was not affiliated with, using a similar (or identical?) name, Iglesia Católica Apostólica Ortodoxa de Guatemala (also on the same page Iglesia Católica Ortodoxa de Guatemala) at the Wayback Machine (archived February 3, 2006). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The Giron group's English web page seems to be http://www.thewordfromguatemala.com/ John Chakos is the current person on the ground. A useful orienting page seems to be http://www.mayanorthodoxy.com/faq/ That site states 6 priests, approximately 40,000 converts and about 100 parishes (but over two countries) which seems plausible (the number of converts may still be on the high side). There is also definitely an Antiochian Orthodox orphanage in Guatemala City. That leaves the Syriac Orthodox group led by Archbishop Mor Yaqub of Central America formerly Eduardo Aguirre Oestmann of unverified size (I suspect it is at most the same size as the Giron group). --Erp (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW you last link is the group associated with the orphanage I think. At least it mentions the orphanage under the social work page on that site. --Erp (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Individual intentions

From reading the cited sources, it seems to me that the older figures are just estimates of corporate absorptions in which an organizational identity changed. In 2010 and 2013, individuals were seemingly received into communion through economy, i.e. not through strict interpretation and application of church norms, so the individuals were not received into communion through verifiable standards in which each individual:

• was catechised
• had recanted heretical opinions
• was christmated, or baptised and chrismated if needed

An organizational change does not consider the individual intentions to accept or reject a potential conversion, or for that matter to undergo conversion or metanoia.

@Evensteven: I think it would be beneficial to include an Orthodox definition of conversion in this article or at least link. can you help? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Well (and I don't mean this as a criticism), you seem to approach this the way a Protestant would, but it's not the way an Orthodox would. And I don't think I really fully understand what your question is: "individual intentions"? "corporate 'absorptions'"? Conversion? Baptism? Orthodox norms? Economia? How they relate? Are you actually asking whether or not the conversions are "valid"? According to Orthodoxy? Or others? I could leave many feet of text behind, but I need a bit more guidance on what you're looking for. Evensteven (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Evensteven: no criticism taken. I am not asking about valid. What do Eastern Orthodox mean by conversion? The more I look, the more I am confused, e.g. this page on orthodoxinfo.com says:

it is for the convert to Orthodoxy in America a sine qua non of successful growth in Orthodoxy that he adopt many of these same cultural traditions. [...] The convert might object, indeed, to the thought of having to adopt an Orthodox culture as a prerequisite for the reception of the Orthodox faith. "Must I become a Greek, or a Russian, or a Serbian, or so on?" might be the rhetorical response to this prerequisite. The answer is, to some extent, "yes."

I guess I have two questions: What do Eastern Orthodox mean by conversion? What would it even mean to say Mayan Orthodoxy? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I see we've been heading the same direction as I've thought more about your question. There's no simple way to summarize, partly because Orthodox "conversion" is wholistic, that is, it permeates the entire person, and partly because it also permeates Orthodoxy, its theology, worship, praxis, traditions, culture, attitude. Attitude, you might say? Indeed: the internal direction, focus, locus (position), from which everything is seen, the foundation from which viewpoint comes.

Theologically, religious conversion might be thought of as a change of direction, a turning away from something (e.g. "evil", "Satan") and a turning towards another (e.g. God) (=repentance), accompanied by a change in behavior that reflects the change in orientation (=obedience, especially to God). It might also take a less drastic form though, say in "conversion" from one branch of Christian church to another, as in the case of the Guatemalans. I myself have undergone both kinds, at different times. Such a change of heart would be seen as a precursor to Orthodox baptism/chrismation (they are the two prongs of essentially the same holy mystery), since baptism is itself another change, one that establishes a certain orientation towards God and the Church, makes one a member of the Church, and opens to the person a Christian life within the Church. For the conversion is individual, but the life is in community. And the conversion is lifelong. As the person does not arrive at the point of baptism without having come there from elsewhere, undergoing small conversion changes along the way, so likewise, the Church member in a life of faith grows continually closer to God, undergoing continued repentance, and becoming more obedient. In the prayers of preparation for communion, said by faithful Orthodox each time before partaking at the Divine Liturgy, is this sentence: "But You, O Lord, Who are forbearing, long-suffering, and plenteous in mercy, has not given me up to perish in my iniquities, most surely awaiting my conversion." Whereby we see that conversion is not singular, but a procession of growth. It takes place first outside the Church, and then after baptism, within the Church.

This view of conversion may sometimes strike a westerner as something strange or unfamiliar. If so, the degree of "strangeness" reflects one's degree of separation from Orthodox "culture". By that, I mean specifically Orthodox Christian orientation, its religious culture, comprised of theology, worship, praxis, traditions, and entwined within Orthodox communities, but that which is specifically religious rather than ethnic. This might consist of (most fundamentally) the practice of liturgical corporate worship, but branches into all sorts of smaller things. For example: in marriage, the couple do not take vows to each other; the church and home are adorned with icons, which are venerated (i.e., honored, not worshipped, in honor of what the icon depicts); when one greets a priest, one asks his blessing and kisses his hand (because of the priest's role as the icon of Christ, honoring not the priest, but Christ whom he depicts for us); the placement of the open casket of the faithful departed in the church the day before the funeral, so that they may also be venerated, and so that the community may keep vigil in prayer for him or her throughout the night before. Such a list can be quite extensive, and some of its aspects can feel seriously foreign to many western non-Orthodox, or even new Orthodox. Knowing what this religious culture is about requires individual growth in the faith, inquiry and searching, experience of its practice, and the context of the Church itself while it is practicing it. This is what Bishop Chrysostomos is speaking of as "cultural paradosis" in your source at orthodoxinfo.com, and about which he gives the example of the monk who is still learning what his faith means. He too was acquiring the Orthodox culture.

But there is, of course, also a matter of human culture, ethnic or national, for that is a part of people, and is about them, whereas the religious culture is more focused on God. But that connection remains even in human culture. Bishop Chrysostomos points out various ethnic foods developed within human cultures that are or have been predominantly Orthodox, which are tied to religious celebrations or observances. That food is not a part of actual church services, but is a part of the community life that follows the services, and carries the celebrations out into the world. In times of fasting, it reflects the church's fasting disciplines in its choices, avoiding meat and dairy, for example. In times of feasting, it permits all foods, and takes from what is available to the human culture in its geographical setting. Similar observations can be made about dance, or celebratory aspect (rejoicing, merry-making). The joy is there in times of fasting, but it is more subdued and restrained, in keeping with the aspect of fasting. But it is not absent either, as the aspect of fasting is itself joyful, not grievous. And at feasts, the joy is not restrained. These aspects are a part of Orthodox tradition within a human culture, and the tradition of Orthodoxy is that they are not only appropriate but desirable and beneficial and necessary. And historically in predominantly Orthodox regions, Orthodoxy itself becomes manifested within the human culture through those ethnic observances, and that culture thus adopts or converts itself to Orthodoxy to a degree. Bishop Chrysostomos speaks also not only how this is a somewhat foreign idea to Americans, but how American culture itself has for some time been growing increasingly separated even from Protestant traditions, and how many Americans seek now to push religious considerations entirely out of American culture. These changes in American society represent a major shift in how it views both religious freedom and the political doctrine of separation of church and state. Neither of those doctrines ever were entirely compatible with Orthodox practice elsewhere, and they become less compatible as they change.

So, American Orthodox then, are not greeted with a culturally welcoming situation. Yet, we are Americans, and we seek connection with our American culture wherever we can find it, and we bring such things as our American foods to our Orthodox celebrations following the church services. But being new to America, we are now developing our American cultural traditions within Orthodoxy, and are in early stages, for Orthodox think long-term - decades are small, Orthodoxy spans millennia. American culture may not itself adopt Orthodoxy now, but that does not prevent Orthodoxy from adopting America. Still, the joining of Orthodoxy and ethnic culture enjoyed in other locales will be missed in the mean time; both Orthodoxy and America will lack what they might have had. And as current learners, we American Orthodox thus especially need to learn from our fellow Orthodox immigrants and the cultures from which they came. And as fellows, we do well to join them in their culture so far as we may. It is necessary for us to do so, so that we may not only share brotherhood/sisterhood, but also to experience Orthodoxy more fully. And this is why Bishop Chrysostomos speaks of Americans "becoming" Greek, Russian, Serbian, or Arab, as something of a necessity. It's not a denial of our own cultural heritage, nor a complete transformation to another one, that is sought. But it is having the experience of the fullest expression of Orthodoxy in human life that it is possible to have.

If some of us Americans are just beginning our conversions to Orthodoxy, so likewise the Mayans in Guatemala are even closer to the start, and have almost nothing in place. It is important now for them that a full Orthodoxy be brought and taught to them as well: not just theology, but worship especially, and church praxis and traditions, and cultural examples both religious and ethnic, so that they may grow in the faith. Thus over time, they too may devise what it truly means to be both Mayan and Orthodox. When they do, then we will be able to look at it and say, that is Mayan Orthodoxy. God is the Creator. But He gave us human creative abilities to use in cooperation with Him. Today we see a new creation, yet an infant, and wonder what it will become when grown. And that is also conversion. Evensteven (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Well we are suppose to be discussing the article and what should be in it. What we seem to have are at least three Orthodox communities in Guatemala so how should they be described in the article? The oldest seems to be the group associated with the orphanage and also perhaps having connections with immigrants and their descendants of Orthodox background. The other two were started by priests who have left the Roman Catholic Church and joined (after some meandering) two different branches of the Orthodox church along with two groups of Mayans. Size of the groups are unknown and claims range up to a million though more plausibly well under 100,000 total some of whom are actually in Mexico. Most of the new members are probably not very informed about Orthodoxy and probably have not formally joined (beyond baptism which they had as Catholics). So three subsections, one for each of the groups? Or should we merge this into the main Religion in Guatemala article? --Erp (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I was answering BoBoMisiu's query, Erp, about conversion from an Orthodox point of view. Patience, please. It is not for you to say that my reply is not what we're "supposed" to be talking about, even if not all listeners here have the same concerns as he. Neither is it for you to say what it takes to answer the question.

Rest assured about one other thing, they have indeed "joined" Orthodoxy. Orthodox resources in the country were quite minimal when they did so, so it is natural (and consistent with Orthodox norms) that the principle of economia be applied, but make no mistake about the firmness of their official status on that account. To do so would be to misunderstand Orthodoxy in that regard. You may disagree with the Orthodox view, but that does not invalidate its Orthodoxy.

Indeed, many of them are likely not well "informed", but if you understand my reply to BoBoMisiu above, you will also understand that it is also Orthodox to consider that conversion happens over a lifetime during which one grows in understanding, and that view is nothing new. From the Orthodox perspective, the key is that these people now have the assistance and participation from within the Church itself to assist them in that growth. One needs to recognize in economia that the norms that apply where there are resources available for catechism prior to baptism are not regarded as requirements under these circumstances. In Orthodoxy, circumstances do not force what is humanly impossible. And neither does anyone force participation or continuation in the Church at any time, member or not. It is doctrinal in Orthodoxy to say that salvation itself is always voluntary, because it is always God's will that a person be saved. Yet God Himself never forces us either. All are free to go the way of their choice. What may be hard for some to understand is that whole large groups of humans can and do make such choices together. This is a larger group than normal, but not without precedent. But even in modern days whole villages in Africa have, one and all without exception, become Orthodox together in similar fashion, under circumstances where individual choice and volition can be verified. Evensteven (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

However we have no real idea of how many. Note there are two ways of counting. First how many does the Orthodox church consider to belong. Second how many people consider themselves to belong. Surveys or census questions are usually good ways of determining the second (depending on how the question is phrased, for instance if Orthodox isn't a choice and there is no option to specify what other you are, no Orthodox will show up). The religion's own records are a good way of determining the first (baptisms, formal reception into the religion for those baptized in a different denomination). There are frequently discrepancies between the two ways of counting. In the US for instance large surveys like the Pew Forum show twice as many people claim to be Unitarian Universalists than are on the UU Association's records. In contrast the number of people claiming to be Mormon in the US is considerably smaller than the church's records. This holds true elsewhere, Mormons claim 255,000 members in Guatemala; the actual numbers are almost certainly far smaller (among other things it would mean 600 people/congregation when the actual number is closer to 100 according to the Mormon's own reports). Unfortunately there are probably no good surveys of the Mayan population as regards religion (or probably just about anything). Then there is the third way of counting, hyperbole; a news article states that possibly up to x hundred thousand have joined which would be technically true even if the actual number was 1000 total. We need to carefully distinguish which is which when giving numbers. --Erp (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Evensteven: OK, so "cultural paradosis" is cultural customs and what Catholics call "pious practices" and "popular religiosity". Chakos said, in the Youtube video I added above, that Mayans "love Christ, they love the church or the little that they know of of it at this time" (t=21m15s) so they "incorporate elements from different traditions of Christianity because that is all they have ever known, there is Orthodoxy, there is Catholicism, there is kind of an evangelical and at times a charismatic piety that is manifested" (t=16m44s). Chakos said that catechists are the "teachers and spiritual leaders in the villages" (t=18m41s); priests go on "itinerant preaching but the catechists run the churches services during the time [unintelligible]" (t=19m10s). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Erp and Evensteven: historically, groups created by vagantes bishops tend to exagerate membership – it is a defining feature in studies and definitions of those bishops - e.g. Joseph René Vilatte, in the late 19th century claimed 500,000+ members but the US Census counted three ministers, five edifices and 700 members. Aguirre and Giron were associated with vagantes bishops.

Looking at the images on icergua.org, i.e. Aguirre group, makes me wonder if the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch even investigated what the Aguirre group claims

This is what I expected to see when Mor Santiago, i.e. Aguirre, is at the altar (on this page). But, within days of receiving the dignity of an archbishop within the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch, Mor Santiago, i.e. Aguirre, presided at two locations over what does not look like either an orthodox Divine Liturgy or a Catholic Mass (images here and here both found on this page) in which two men not dressed in liturgical vestments stand behind an altar and hold a Eucharistic chalice (made of glass in one image) and paten. I also notice what looks to me like the Vatican City flag in the background at two locations (here and more clearly here). In 2013, what looks like the Vatican City flag during another Divine Liturgy that does not look orthodox (on this page). western style crozier during a late 2013 Chrismation (on this page) instead of his eastern style from earier that year (on this page). In 2014, what looks like the Vatican City flag is behind him again (on this page). These nonverbal communications through symbol in a sacramental setting do not seem to be those of an Orthodox bishop.

I agree with Erp and Evensteven that "there are probably no good surveys of the Mayan population as regards religion". I think that three sections is the best way to separate the article, include a sentence that there no reliable figures about membership, and to place the available self-reported figures into a footnote for each. Chrismation is the standard of membership but economy circumvents the standard yet both would identify the individuals. Orthodox record when people become catechumens. You visit a village you bring a parish register and you record name, birth date, baptism date, chrismation date, etc. in the register then you have figures; counting is humanly possible so not having figures in Guatemala is suspicious. Evensteven these people were already baptised Christians in Aguirre's and Giron's churches.

In contrast, the orphanage group does not make these kinds of claims so, I think, its fair to describe it without figures as as the oldest group formed around a monastic community near Guatemala City that operates an orphanage and has a parish temple. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

No arguments from me about problems with numbers. Since WP often depends on third-party verifications, it seems we can verify that the ones available have identifiable problems. It does seem best to me to give both self-reported figures and third-party ones, noting specifically the wide variation and lack of verifications. And given that, a footnote does also seem a good way to present those details, anchored by a summary sentence or two in article text.

Re: "cultural paradosis" is cultural customs and what Catholics call "pious practices" and "popular religiosity", partially only. The part these play in Catholicism is historically related to that of Orthodoxy, but the significance is not now the same. It's a difference of church praxis and how that is incorporated into the life of the church. Re: [the Mayans] "incorporate elements from different traditions of Christianity because that is all they have ever known", yes exactly. It couldn't be otherwise, and that is well within Orthodox norms. As I described "conversion" above, the Orthodox Church accepts people where they are, and teaches all its membership the faith, continuously from the time they enter the church, a part of ongoing conversion. In time, that which is not of Orthodoxy falls away, as understanding and acceptance increase. It has always been so, equally among the Kievan Rus, the Anglo-Saxon converts of now-England (ca 600-900), and current-day villages in Africa. But what is compatible to Orthodoxy remains as part of the culture heritage of the converted. Some Protestants have difficulties accepting this as valid, since their own prescriptions for conversion set certain expected standards that don't necessarily match Orthodoxy. But I would just ask that it be accepted if I say Orthodox methods are not lax and are always treated seriously, even in cases such as this where economia comes in play.

One key to Guatemala is to emphasize how the Mayans came from the Catholic Church, having received baptism there, with water, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", which are the cornerstones everywhere by which any non-Orthodox baptisms may be accepted in Orthodoxy. It should also be mentioned that such acceptance itself constitutes economia in practice, since baptism and chrismation are two services normally celebrated together also within the Divine Liturgy, and "baptism" as a "sacrament" ("mystery") may be considered intellectually/rationally apart from chrismation, but not as theologically or liturgically separated. Hence the economia (the exception) shown in acceptance of a person into the church by Orthodox chrismation alone and the silent recognition of the non-Orthodox baptism. In similar fashion, such Catholic catechism as the converts may have had appear from our external view to have been accepted as sufficient foundation in the Christian faith for initial acceptance into Orthodoxy, but we have no confirmation about the realities of those appearances.

I don't myself know the details of the Mayan receptions, but I do know of the quick response of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in support of the almost overwhelming pastoral needs of the new Orthodox, itself a testimony to the Patriarchate's acceptance of their reception. (I would think the Oriental Orthodox acceptances would be parallel.) I don't therefore know anything about how the paperwork and official records are being worked out, but that's a pastoral matter also that is no doubt being attended to in accordance with its priority among all the huge pastoral matters. The extent to which any of that has been officially published, I also don't know. We can take all self-reported numbers as being preliminary until something official says otherwise, and more recent numbers as having a higher likelihood of being the more accurate.

I myself attended a retreat at which I met and spoke briefly with Mother Inez, the abbotess (to use the closest English titles) of the monastery in Guatemala City. Every Orthodox monastery has a temple (church building), as prayer is at the heart of the monastic community. The monastic temple is not a parish church, but non-monastic Orthodox generally can and do attend services there. This monastery was indeed founded well before the mass conversions under discussion here. They founded the orphanage in Guatemala City soon after, as well. By virtue of their geographical location and direct contact with the necessary associated governmental authorities, it should be noted that their prime ministries have been focused within the mainstreams of Guatemalan society, whereas the Mayans had been pushed to the peripheries long since. While the street children taken into the orphanage were equally at the peripheries themselves, the two situations are far from equivalent and involve considerably different pastoral needs, as well as having distinct histories. In particular, the record-keeping has occurred under greatly differing conditions.

Re: counting is humanly possible so not having figures in Guatemala is suspicious May I ask what it is you are suspicious of? Evensteven (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Evensteven: you are right, the orphanage group has its parish church at the orphanage.[1]

Not having reliable figures for a claimed explosion of Orthodoxy is suspicious. The intention of the individual is at the core of conversion, even in the 19th century Russian Orthodox Church had "lists of the converted people who were to state their reasons for conversion and write on whose instigation they had made their decision" (here). A convert's written statement is a norm for receiving a convert into an Orthodox Church. That was in the spirit of First Council of Constantinople canon 7 which requires a written recantation from heretics received into the Church (pp420–421). Over a century ago the Russian Orthodox Church did not use an estimated figure but a count that demonstrated intention – yet in Guatemala there is only hyperbole. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Re A convert's written statement is a norm for receiving a convert into an Orthodox Church.: Very dubious, at least as a universal practice in Orthodoxy; possible as a localized recent practice. My parish is mostly converts, and it's never happened there; it was not so for me. Besides, it would be superfluous. The services themselves all have declarations of intent and recantation: catechumenate, baptism, chrismation - very explicit and extensive ones in the service for the catechumenate. The Nicene Creed is prayed everywhere: no filioque. Statement of intention is continuous and repeated in all Orthodox worship, and that worship makes statements of Orthodox theology and doctrine. A large portion of the wordings of prayers are taken directly from Scripture, and the meaning of the Scripture is expounded also in those prayers. It is as though the service is itself a sermon as well as worship. And that is so that the Orthodox may be assured of praying truly according to the faith, and come better to understand the faith while doing so. If anyone is in doubt about his/her intent to adopt Orthodoxy, it rapidly becomes evident to them even while they pray. Anyone can have an issue come up at any time. They work at the issue, resolve it and stay, or some decide they cannot resolve it, and leave. But no deadlines; it's individual, and it's pastoral. You are stressing outward forms too much, treating them like hard and fast rules to be obeyed. But they're not. They're guidelines, and they are firm. But they are not in place as a hurdle to get over at a single jump. And they do not stand by themselves. No one can just go around them somehow, because they are also built into the fabric of the way the faith is practiced. The faith itself is continuous renewal of intent. And in Orthodoxy, there is no such thing as finality in this lifetime. Ultimately, intent is proven at one's time of death, by how one has lived, for that is how Christ will judge us.

If you are in doubt about how these people were received into Orthodoxy, you must have verification that it was done outside of economia. That would mean that the Patriarchate would not bless the actual event, that something was done or left undone that was counter to Patriarchal direction for the time. Such few clergy as were in fact there were sent by the Patriarchate, and would have had guidance from the bishops as to how it should be done. If it was not done so, then the Patriarchate would have a matter that it would be concerned about and investigate. That would be both a pastoral concern for those received, and potentially a matter for clerical discipline. How you or I interpret or view what was done is not particularly mundane. It is the bishops that are the responsible authority for making the decisions about what and how economia is applied and ensuring that it is carried out. If there is no verification within the Patriarchate that misdeeds are under investigation, then there is no evidence that the reception of the Mayans is in any question. As far as I know, any such questions have originated outside the Orthodox Church, and are simply the result of misinterpretations or disagreements of viewpoint, which is an entirely understandable thing, but which carries no weight. Evensteven (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Without documentation even an Orthodox bishop is clueless about which individual is under his omophorion.

Think about it, if I walk into a random Orthodox church and tell the priest that my girlfriend and I are both from Guatemala and we want sacramental marriage this week but we do not have any sacramental records of a baptism or a chrismation. Will the priest accept what I say to him without verifying the facts? No, that would be irresponsible since he does not even know if we are Orthodox and his responsibility is to represent the Church – even if I repeatedly tell him about economical happenings in 2010. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Re Without documentation even an Orthodox bishop is clueless about which individual is under his omophorion ? Absurd. Do you really think documents are the only way to confirm something? No, they are a shortcut, making the confirmation quicker and easier (also more durable). If, as you suggest, you walk into a random Orthodox church and tell the priest that my girlfriend and I are both from Guatemala and we want sacramental marriage this week, you will not get the response you expect. You will be asked why you are not asking for marriage at your home parish (or your fiancee's), and you will also be asked why you are not also asking for the normal pre-marital counseling with your own confessor. And if you cannot arrange for everything, including confirmation of your Orthodoxy, within your given time frame, then the marriage will most certainly not take place within that time. Even at home where you are known, a week is likely to be most insufficient, and you would be thought simply to be a poor planner. Norms that apply outside of Orthodoxy cannot be assumed, because the Church (via the priest) does indeed take responsibility seriously. You can't just walk in to "a random Orthodox church" to receive communion on a Sunday morning. If you plan to be away from home and where you are not known, it is the norm to contact the church or priest beforehand, carrying introduction from your own priest. If during service you approach the cup and are not known, you can be questioned and even turned away. No Orthodox expects a "random" approach to we want sacramental marriage (or any other sacrament) to be recognized as anything but hubris, because that approach and that attitude reflects a complete misunderstanding of what the sacrament represents.

And getting back to the Mayans, let's remember that they came from Catholicism. There is plenty of cross-over understanding of Orthodoxy there to begin with, for their doctrinal differences pale in comparison to differences between Orthodoxy and common attitudes in the US today. I would be amazed to hear of your scenario even being attempted among the Mayans. But if it were, it would be subject to counsel and correction.

There's a further point, perhaps. The Church's documentation is produced for its own use, for the variety of pastoral situations it does encounter. That does not presuppose that it includes counts of persons or documents. Those would be extras, perhaps if needed for administrative purposes or resource allocations. The church would then want to be as accurate as it needed to be to get the job done. Consider Fr Peter Jackson's statement that the Mayan conversion "is probably the greatest ministry challenge facing the Orthodox Church today", and what that means in practical terms. Producing precise numbers is a highly unlikely priority. I think using the word "claim" in reference to self-reported numbers is an external exaggeration of reporting in itself, and not something the Orthodox Church is doing. Evensteven (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] The baseline of the point in this section about conversion, as applied to the Mayan converts, is summed up well at http://www.mayanorthodoxy.com/faq/ :

"They are still at the very beginning of a long process of transition." That process and that transition is what conversion is. Evensteven (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Evensteven: "contact the church or priest beforehand, carrying introduction from your own priest", i.e. documentation that you, the individual person, are Orthodox and not just that your village was once declared Orthodox years ago. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. A person to whom you are known who is vouching for you. I don't know exactly how they are managing in Nicaragua, but I'm sure they're trying to put it all together as well as they can. There are missionaries there too, you know. It's not all on the priests. But people get to know each other even when they didn't before, and they can be trusted to tell the truth. If they don't, it's not like identity is hidden from the villagers themselves, who have lived their whole lives together, and they too know. Do you think a piece of paper is superior to this? Where does the paper come from, ever? I'm not saying the paper is not useful or important, just that the Church is not entirely dependent on it, and never is. Does this clarify? Evensteven (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Evensteven: yes it does help. Your comment helped me to better define what I think I am looking for to improve the article, i.e. about division of geographic territory into three canonical territories. Writing about that might be a more gentle way of answering how without documentation even an would each Orthodox bishop is clueless , the three responsible people, know about which individual is under his omophorion? A dead "person to whom you are known" will never vouch for anyone without documentation in a written record – without storing the knowledge an institution's memory is gone once an individual's memory is lost. As I read more about Orthodox administration, I seriously doubt that the range of cited figures (5,000–40,000–500,000) can be dismissed as "good enough for the Orthodox". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu: Excellent; glad it's helped. Yes, the Orthodox bishop can know (or find out) who is under his omophorion, through the knowledge of the living. Ultimately, the converts themselves live in villages where pretty much everyone is known to everyone else, and those whole villages are becoming known to others as well: the missionaries, the priests, even the bishops to a degree. Where there is a need to know something, the knowledge is shared, and the priests or bishops, fewest in number, can make official inquiry when required. I'm sure they do. None of that denies that the documentation could be helpful, nor that when a person dies, that person's knowledge and ability to vouch dies with him/her. So the documents can preserve some info over longer spans (generations) of time. But it does indeed come down to what the priorities are for providing pastoral care. I've never tried to say that the documentation is unimportant, nor would the Church consider it so, but there are priorities. There are also other practical aspects. Where are such documents to be stored? It's not like there's much church infrastructure in Guatemala yet, and we're talking warehouses worth of paper, potentially, as well as extraordinary difficulties with transportation of materials. Under unoptimal conditions, unoptimal statuses will occur and must be borne, unless and until they can be corrected within assigned priorities. All I can say is that the Church is going to assign its own priorities, and may not address external concerns according to other external priorities. If that leaves us with a problem on WP, ok, so it does. As I've said before, the "documentation" we're talking about is of multiple kinds, of various uses to the church itself, but the numbers that we've been concerned with here are derivative information, of much less concern to the Church (which is something I've been trying to express clearly). I seriously doubt that the clergy have any concerns whatever about what numbers are being reported. What they would have concern for is the people themselves, and seeing to their needs. One doesn't need our numbers for that, certainly not to much degree of accuracy. Numbers can drive logistical issues to a degree, but only when it's possible to drive supply at a certain logistical scale. Numbers that are "good enough" for us are not there. Numbers that are "good enough" for the Church may not be there either. But that doesn't represent a crisis for the Church, nor should it for us here.

The range of cited figures is ridiculous, and Orthodox sources have themselves confirmed that. As I said earlier, I think we should throw out numbers that were reported hard on the heels of the conversions. There had clearly not been time for anyone to do anything like a census, or even a good estimate. Let's take what's more current (2015) and treat them with a higher degree of credibility for now, just because there's been more time. And let's keep an eye on all those things that affect credibility in sources, including vested interests, lack of expertise, and inadequacies (legitimate or not) of methodology for our purpose. And let's not become anxious when we don't find any information that meets a high standard. High standards require infrastructure. And that just doesn't exist everywhere, or at all times. Evensteven (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Evensteven: I agree that "range of cited figures is ridiculous" but have not found "Orthodox sources have themselves confirmed that". Removing the initial figures is only a partial solution since the claim of being the largest Orthodox conversion event in a 1000 years hinges on that. The article would have to explain that the claim of being the largest Orthodox conversion event in a 1000 years is not verifiable in 2015 and that the claim was based on unreliabe figures. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, for the last time, the Orthodox Church is not "making claims". Others are claiming that it is. The Orthodox Church is simply trying to respond to the pastoral care of a large group of converts. And as stated in the source you brought to this discussion yourself, quote - As of 2015, Fr. John Chakos still is unsure about the specific number of people, saying simply that "there are thousands of people, but not hundreds of thousands." - unquote, the Orthodox Church is not claiming to have reliable figures, or even very specific estimates, as I have been saying. And I have tried to explain why. But there is your confirmation of "Orthodox sources have themselves confirmed that" [cited figures are ridiculous]. And I have also agreed with you about taking the most recent figures that are available, rather than earlier ones, because they are virtually certain to be better. But I'm sorry - what the Orthodox Church needs for its pastoral care is not likely to give us what we need here in the way of reliable figures. You are likely to know as well as I where else to look, but I would not hold out much hope that other sources are going to provide any time soon a real improvement to the situation. Evensteven (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Counts

I'm starting this as a new section. I'm not sure counting is easily possible. Going with the Giron group which seems to be more present on the ground, they have only 6-8 priests for what is fairly obviously a large (several thousand possibly) though nebulous group. The problem is how many of that group consider themselves Orthodox and how many consider themselves something else but still come for the pageantry. Even if they are formally entered, how many might also be on the Catholic Church's rolls. In the meantime I've split the article into three sections though not proofread the whole. --Erp (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Re how many consider themselves something else: That's been addressed above. If you wish simply to ignore what I've said, or don't believe it, that's your personal option, but it's a personal view also, and not appropriate as a starting point for editing. Verifying counts is one thing, but a good count must match the entire group, as its acceptance into Orthodoxy is verified. Evensteven (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Evensteven: the figures should be in this article but the concepts could go into a Conversion in Orthodoxy article or Proselytism in Orthodoxy article that contains the explanations. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that the concepts themselves belong in this article. I think they have belonged on the talk page, however, because the concepts are mundane to the business of deciding on the reliability of the figures and the sources that report them. The Orthodox Church itself is the only reliable arbiter of who is a member in good standing and who is not. I think the same could be said of any organization, religious or not. Evensteven (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, since "Orthodox Church itself is the only reliable arbiter of who is a member in good standing and who is not", the Church has to define which individual is a member to be able decide which individual is in good standing. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Canonical territories

There are three canonical Orthodox Churches in Guatemala.

• In 1995, the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch was the first to incorporate a canonical structure in Guatemala (Catholic Apostolic Orthodox Antiochian Church in Guatemala) but it does not have a diocesan bishop of Guatemala – it is administered by its archdiocese in Mexico.
• In 2010, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople was next but it does not have a diocesan bishop of Guatemala – it is administered by its archdiocese in Mexico.
• In 2013, the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch incorporated its Archdiocese of Centeral America and has a metropolitan archbishop.

How is the geographic extent of canonical territories defined in Guatemala by each Orthodox Church? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The short answer is that is probably isn't ("defined", that is), but in practical terms, it's just Guatemala itself. Real definition is not even done in the US or Europe. There are no two ways about it. Orthodox Church canons regarding geographical placement of Orthodox churches is based on conditions that have not existed in a practical way for many centuries, say 1200 years. Changing the canons would require an ecumenical council, which is why it hasn't been done, for it also has not been possible to have such a council in modern times (for a variety of canonical reasons). And so the Orthodox Church has had to live with an imperfect situation, and continues to do so. There are differences of opinion even about what should be done to address the issues in the absence of an ecumenical council, another indicator of how necessary such a council would be to settle things. And in Guatemala, Greek Antioch and Constantinople are in communion and both part of the EOC, but Syrian Antioch is not (they are Oriental Orthodox, not in communion with EOC), so not even an ecumenical council would resolve that division. Wrt the Syrian church, it's just like having both EOC and Catholic churches in Guatemala. Wrt Greek Antioch and Constantinople, it's like the Antiochian, Greek, OCA, Serbian, etc multiple jurisdictional presences in the US and Canada, or western Europe: all EOC, all in one geographical area, but not the same jurisdiction. That's what not canonical about it. It's a church governance problem that falls within the scope of the bishops' duties (meaning Patriarchs as well). One may notice certain practical difficulties arising from circumstances like the 100-year post-Ottoman pressures to remove the Orthodox church from Turkey, or the warring in Syria that has reduced the population of Christians there by 70% (conservatively) in the last 3 years, not to mention the devastation of infrastructure. I don't wonder that Syrian Antioch is hard pressed to respond in Guatemala. Since ISIS became involved in Syria, the brother of the Ecumenical Patriarch, himself a bishop, disappeared there and was likely killed. You have to remember that the conditions in America are not the conditions everywhere. Evensteven (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I may be confused by the question asked but I think what could be useful is the full region the overseeing bishop in each denomination has (his diocese or archdiocese). For instance the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch includes Guatemala in the Archdiocese of Central America but what is the extent of the Archdiocese and is there another place in wikipedia which has further information on the archbishop or archdiocese? Given that two of the Orthodox churches have their archbishops in Mexico should there be further information about them in the Religion in Mexico article [which has almost nothing]. Or perhaps this article should be renamed to Orthodox Church in the Americas (or Central America or Latin America) and include information about Orthodoxy in the whole region which might be enough for a reasonable article. Then have the various Religion in country X point to that article. --Erp (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the Antiochian (EOC) archdiocese covers the American hemisphere, but I'm not sure which diocese covers Guatemala. It would seem likely that it would include Mexico as well, and that that is where the diocesan seat would be. The OCMC, which is providing missionary assistance, is a pan-Orthodox (EOC) agency that works cooperatively with all the EOC jurisdictions in the Americas. I'm afraid I know nothing of the Syrian organizational structure. Evensteven (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Erp and Evensteven: the territory is not just Guatemala, a short list page about Orthodox Church in Central America or Latin America might help to visualize a bigger picture across more countries. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Evensteven: all Christians in Syria and Iraq are suffering terribly but that is not the cause of the scandelous liturgical abuses that I linked to – syncretism and heterodoxy is common in vagantes as is seen in blogs and forums, e.g. fakeorthodox.blogspot.com, but could never be added to Wikipedia. The most recent reliable book on that subject was published in mid 1960s and does not cover the newer vagantes iterations. Even the membership figures provided by two former vagantes were just accepted as being reliable by the authorities. I don't think it is part of a concerted effort to discredit the reputation of two patriarchates. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have indicated before that I have little insight to offer regarding the Syrian (Oriental) Orthodox church or what has happened or is happening there. I sometimes wonder how many westerners making commentary realize the difference either. But I'm not surprised to see some people be scandalized at the thought of significant numbers of conversions to Orthodoxy, or that it happens in groups. Protestant orientation is so devoted to individualistic ideas about what constitutes a "true" Christian faith that they are unwilling to acknowledge that theirs is not a uniform view among Christians, and they are scandalized by that. Many unchurched westerners also have similar individualistic notions based upon democracy and one-person-one-vote, and never see human beings acting in concert or community together. But that is not universal to humanity either. The bottom line I'm trying to draw here is that until the Orthodox Church is itself convinced that there actually were liturgical abuses, or some kind of scandal, then it is not going to take action - but if it does become convinced, then you will most certainly see action, and that directed towards clergy participating in the scandal wherever else it may also be directed. And it should not surprise you that if non-Orthodox are scandalized and Orthodox are not, that is not a particular concern either. People are scandalized about this and that all the time, all over the place, about all sorts of things, and those that are not scandalized pay little notice. Refusal to engage in battles is not a uniquely Orthodox attitude. As for vagantes, and any syncretism or heterodoxy in groups before they become Orthodox, those things require working out over time once they are Orthodox, but Orthodoxy does not require all things to be settled before acceptance into the Church. Those things that are issues will remain issues, and how individuals deal with them is a part of their ongoing conversion (or in some cases, perhaps a refusal to continue). But there is much room for individual opinion and viewpoint in Orthodoxy, far more than is supposed generally, and (I would say), far more than in Catholicism. To sort this out is not so easy.

So, I say again, claims of scandal and liturgical abuse is not evident within Orthodoxy, although such claims are made from outside. So be it. Those claims are reportable on WP so long as they come from reliable sources, and are attributed properly. I'm just continually amazed though, at the expectation that whenever (and just because) a claim of scandal is raised, the first reaction to any dissent that there is a scandal is taken as a defense of one who is attacked. I wouldn't be surprised if someone would like to discredit the reputation of two patriarchates, but I don't automatically think you are, neither do I know for sure who or if anyone else is. Truly, I am not up in arms in defense of Orthodoxy here. Orthodoxy and its practices are much stronger than these things, and do not need my poor ammunition. I've only been trying to point out what looks like scandal to some does not look like scandal to others, and Orthodoxy is not likely to engage in battles over vanity, for that is a truly Orthodox view of what this "scandal" is. And yet that is not meant to be offputting. It is also Orthodox to engage those who are seeking to understand what the Orthodox view is. It's just not always very easy to articulate it, nor is it always easy to understand, for it's not always founded on common attitudes or opinions. I hope that helps. Evensteven (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

New section needed in article?

The article is divided into two sections, 'Antiochian' and 'Constantinopolitan', which may not be a good division in the long term. The main part of the formerly Antiochian church in Guatemala has now belonged to the Serbian Orthodox Church since November of 2017. I have added this information to the article; it sits a little awkwardly under the 'Antiochian' heading, as it no longer belongs to the church of Antioch. Could someone advise on how to rearrange the article (or simply do it!)? SrLoco (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)