How were you received into the Orthodox Church?

[Anastasios]

Wait Tom, did you just say [font="Times New Roman"]   Micro$oft    [/font]

Maybe we should ban that word like we did T-----k...  

[Athanasius]

I was received by Chrismation two days before Lent of this year.

Athanasius

[Asteriktos]

I became Orthodox about five months ago. In a very unique situation (which I suggest others avoid at all costs), I became Orthodox through confession and communion.

[Anastasios]

Dear Justin,

Do you not consider your former Antiochian heritage to have been Orthodox?

anastasios

[Asteriktos]

I do not deny that there is some grace lingering in the Antiochian Church (sort of how St. Basil, in his First Canon, spoke of grace lingering in schismatic groups). However, I do not think they were able to bring me into the Orthodox Church, no. By their various activities, and especially accepting the anti-chalcedonians, the Patriarch and American Metropolitan (and, no doubt, others) have seperated themselves from God.  But there is still a chance for repentance! "draw near to God and he will draw near to you"

[Anastasios]

Justin,

Thanks for the clarification.  At least you are being consistent.  However, since you were baptised by heretics and chrismated by schismatics, perhaps you would do better to join one of the Old Calendarist Churches that deny N.C. grace where you could be baptised and start anew, not having to interact with New Calendarists at all.  I am not saying I would AGREE with that but perhaps it would set your soul at ease.

anastasios

[Asteriktos]

I'm experiecing no dis-ease in my own spiritual journey; the only problems I'm having (and here I am experiencing quite acute pains) is in how I explain my position to my friends.

Justin

PS. My spiritual father is ROCOR, so that's where I'm staying (for now).

[Elisha]

I became Orthodox about five months ago. In a very unique situation (which I suggest others avoid at all costs), I became Orthodox through confession and communion.

First of all, I think your statement here is misleading in light of your later statements.

Anyways...how long were you "Antiochian" for?

[Asteriktos]

I meant that I became Orthodox through confession/communion in the ROCOR Church, I just didn't want to make this a ROCOR vs. Antiochian thing Regarding being Antiochian, I started attending an Antiochian Church in the summer of 2001 (I had been attending OCA Churches before that, but had moved to a new city). I became a catechumen in that Church and was christmated by the Antiochians in Dec. 2001. I had always been a traditionalist, but I stayed in the Antiochian Church for a while as it seemed like the most sensible thing at the time. By the fall of 2002 it was becoming increasingly obvious to me that my traditionalist views clashed with certain Antiochian practices and beliefs, hence I distanced myself (and because of the communing of anti-chalcedonians I didn't attend the local Antiochian Church, even though it was where I had been chrismated and where my God father attended).

This is not to say I became a raging Antiochian hater, I just distanced myself. Actually, my wife and I had started a yahoo list at that time, and two of the first people we invited were an Antiochian Priest and an Antiochian Deacon we knew. Even with my (now) harder, further-to-the-right stance, I would still like to maintain friendly relations with those I know in "world Orthodoxy," though that's really up to them (I understand that my beliefs are probably very offensive to them).

Oddly enough, even after I broke off relations for the anti-chalcedonian reason, I allowed an Antiochian priest (who also communed anti-chalcedonians) to marry my wife and I. The reason for this, however, was that we were both living in a homeless shelter at the time, and the only way to get out of that situation was to get an apartment together. We had already had months of pre-marital counselling, and had been engaged for about 9 months. So, since we didn't have any real-life, non-internet, relations with a traditionalist priest at the time (since there were none around our area), we had an Antiochian Priest marry us so that we wouldn't be "shacking up". At the time, I held to a Cyprianite ecclesiology, which meant that I was "walled off" from the Antiochians, but didn't deny that they had grace. So because of this, I held to the notion at the time that it was ok to refrain from receiving communion from Antiochians, but that it was ok for an Antiochian priest to marry me and my wife so that we wouldn't be shacking up. I don't say that this was an unhypocritical or good way of going about things; but it was what we felt we had to do at the time. We felt in both situations (walling off and getting married) that we were choosing the lesser of two undesirable choices.

We didn't consider ourselves Antiochian at the time, but rather Orthodox traditionalists who were waiting for a better situation so that we could move closer to a ROCOR Church. We didn't deny the Antiochians had grace at the time, and our distancing was more of a preventive measure than a statement about whether they had grace or not. In March of this year my wife and I confessed and communed at a ROCOR Church, and thereby entered into that jurisdiction (and soon after would get a spiritual father in that jurisdiction). Since that time, as I've prayed and thought about the issues more, and explored 20th century traditionalist thought, I've seen more and more the untenable nature of the ecclesiology I was holding to. It's not that Cyprianite ecclesiology is wrong... it's just past the time for it. Once concelebrations and communion with anti-chalcedonians started, then things had been taken too far. That's a subjective statement (who says that that's too far? based against what objective criterion for determining how far is too far?), but that's what I believe at the present. Not everyone in ROCOR believes as I do, and that's perfectly fine with me; they too are making a subjective judgment (they think that those who have lapsed haven't lapsed quite enough yet for statements like I'm making to be made).

Many will probably fear that I will walk right out of Orthodoxy entirely. I can only say that I am guarding as best I can against "super-correctness" disease. I am trying to avoid groups where this mentality appears. To what extent I myself am infected by this disease, I don't know. Please pray for me.

[Elisha]

Too much information, but otherwise sufficient.

[Asteriktos]

Well if I gave too little information then people would have made assumptions that weren't true to the situation. E.g., people would hear what I say and automatically assume that I'm just some nutball who doesn't know how much he's offending people; when the truth is that it's been a struggle and I went through a lot of "stuff" to get here, and I do not say things lightly or just to flippantly judge or condemn.

PS. And you said that something I had said was misleading, so I was just making sure it was all clear

[Anastasios]

Too much information, but otherwise sufficient.

I for one enjoyed reading his post in its entirety.

anastasios

[Mor Ephrem]

I became Orthodox about five months ago. In a very unique situation (which I suggest others avoid at all costs), I became Orthodox through confession and communion.

Dear Justin,

A question.  Why did you enter ROCOR via confession and communion if you feel the way you do about the Antiochians?  Wouldn't this require/have required you to seek entrance into ROCOR by, at the very least, Chrismation?

[Asteriktos]

At the time I believed that the Antiochians had grace in their sacraments, it was just that I was "walled off" from them because I thought they were in danger of placing themselves outside of the Church. The priest who confessed/communed me (and other ROCOR priests I talked to at the time) considered my Antiochian chrismation to be a grace-filled, Orthodox sacrament. They didn't view me as being non-Orthodox, then, and neither did I; that is just something I believe (I'm pretty sure) now.

[Mor Ephrem]

The priest who confessed/communed me (and other ROCOR priests I talked to at the time) considered my Antiochian chrismation to be a grace-filled, Orthodox sacrament. They didn't view me as being non-Orthodox, then, and neither did I; that is just something I believe (I'm pretty sure) now.

I'm sorry if I seem like I'm pushing the point, and if you don't want to answer this here, I understand, but how does this mesh with your situation now?  Do you want to, or are you planning on, asking to be baptised?  Is that even possible for you in ROCOR since you've already been received, or would you have to join another group?

[Hypo-Ortho]

To ask to be baptized now after you've been Chrismated and that Chrismation has been recognized by the ROCOR is like asking the ROCOR now to backtrack and say, "Oh, that Chrismation is now invalid.  It was valid before and we recognized it, but we don't now because you don't feel comfortable with it."  Is this the scenario, Justin?  I don't want to push any buttons either, but I should hope that the ROCOR has enough integrity to stand by its original decision.  Otherwise, Sacramental Theology is being seriously undermined.

Hypo-Ortho

[Asteriktos]

No, ROCOR would not "rebaptize me" (or rechrismate me) now. Whatever the status or efficacy of former sacraments, I am now Orthodox (even if only Orthodox through Confession/Communion), so there is no need for me to get anything "done again," nor would they do so even if I wanted it done.

[Anastasios]

Yet the Patriarchate of Jerusalem is now doing conditional "corrective" baptisms I understand, from Rdr Constantine White's webpage, just as some monks on Mount Athos do.  Very irregular I believe.

anastasios

[Xenia]

When I was looking forward to my Chrismation date, I called my only Orthodox friend, who (unbeknownst to me at the time) belongs to a Jerusalem Patriarchate parish.  Since she was the one who had a lot to do with my decision to convert, I thought she'd be delighted, but no. She said I had to be rebaptized.  She was adamant.  I told her my priest said I was not to be rebaptized, and he was my spiritual father, and I wasn't going to start my new Orthodox life with an act of rebellion, but she was insistent.   I finally had to tell her that we would not be talking about this anymore.  She called back and apologized for the ruckus but still said she was right.  My priest thought this was a demonic attack to steal my joy over being received into the Orthodox Church.  Now that I've been chrismated she's nice to me and all but I don't think she believes I'm "really" Orthodox.  (And if you happen to stumble onto this forum, dear friend, and read this, I still love you!!!)

-Xenia

[Robert]

Awww Xenia!!!

Don't let her get you down!! You are doing everything right!!

Bobby

[Anastasios]

I have mixed feelings about the JP.  I like how they maintain a traditional Orthodox practice.  But they engage is some really questionable stuff, like communing deposed priests from other jurisdictions.  The Church never had a set practice of baptising all converts, so don't worry about it; just follow the rules of the Church you are joining.

anastasios

[Xenia]

I believe that when I joined the Orthodox Church, I really did join the One True Church and as such, I shouldn't argue with them.  Arguing seems so Protestant.

-Xenia

[Asteriktos]

But they engage is some really questionable stuff, like communing deposed priests from other jurisdictions.

Come'on Anastasios, every jurisdiction LazarPuhalos (can I create that word and use it as a verb? ) every once in a while. Don't be so quick to point fingers, we all got tares or warts. My wife's OCA spiritual father, at one point, forbade my wife from attending a ROCOR Church (even though one of her best friends was ROCOR). All jurisdictions have their unfortunatalities (can I create that word too? ); I'm one of them, I should know!

[Elisha]

But they engage is some really questionable stuff, like communing deposed priests from other jurisdictions.

Come'on Anastasios, every jurisdiction LazarPuhalos (can I create that word and use it as a verb? ) every once in a while. Don't be so quick to point fingers, we all got tares or warts. My wife's OCA spiritual father, at one point, forbade my wife from attending a ROCOR Church (even though one of her best friends was ROCOR). All jurisdictions have their unfortunatalities (can I create that word too? ); I'm one of them, I should know!

Re:  OCA priest:  sounds particular to this priest.  My priest, (OCA and rather conservative), would have no problem if I attended a ROCOR parish - he even encouraged former parishoners who moved away to go to a ROCOR parish (well, especially since the ROCOR parish was one of only two in a reasonable distance).

Re:  JP:  Anastasios ( ), definitely know who you're talking about - but definite agree that Xenia's friend was going WAY overboard.

[Anastasios]

But they engage is some really questionable stuff, like communing deposed priests from other jurisdictions.

Come'on Anastasios, every jurisdiction LazarPuhalos (can I create that word and use it as a verb? ) every once in a while. Don't be so quick to point fingers, we all got tares or warts. My wife's OCA spiritual father, at one point, forbade my wife from attending a ROCOR Church (even though one of her best friends was ROCOR). All jurisdictions have their unfortunatalities (can I create that word too? ); I'm one of them, I should know!

Justin,

Yes, I know that all jurisdictions do wacky things.  It just seems to me that the JP takes advantage of the wackiness of other jurisdictions...  :-

But like I said, I have "mixed feelings" about them. Some of their people online really impress me.  I have not met any in person though yet.

anastasios

[The Caffeinator]

This is an interesting thread. If someone is received into the EOx Church say, by confession and profession of faith, would he then be free to receive the Eucharist in another EOx Church with more rigorous requirements for converts?

[Anastasios]

This is an interesting thread. If someone is received into the EOx Church say, by confession and profession of faith, would he then be free to receive the Eucharist in another EOx Church with more rigorous requirements for converts?

Yes, because all Churches in the Orthodox communion recognize each other's sacraments.

anastasios

[Father Peter]

Hi

What about groups like some of the True Church types and ROCIE and some ROCOR.

Don't they refuse to commune some other EO's, and don't they refuse to concelebrate with many other EO's?

Peter Theodore

[Hypo-Ortho]

The ROCiE is in schism from the ROCOR, from which it sprang, and is not in communion with any recognized Eastern Orthodox Church, Peter.  Likewise the HOCNA.  A few of the "True" (Old Calendarist) Orthodox Churches are recognized only because of their tenuous relationship with the ROCOR, but then, I have seen one SCOBA jurisdiction (ACROD) even refer to the ROCOR itself as "semi-canonical," whatever that's supposed to mean.

Personally, I have no problems with the ROCOR, but they do have some strange bedfellows, IMHO.

Hypo-Ortho

[Anastasios]

Peter,

Every Church has its "semi-with us" counterpart.  For instance, the Ethiopian Church in the USA has/had a schismatic metropolitan.  The EO has "true" counterparts, some of whom I personally have sympathy for and some of whom I do not (again, not like my opinion is the standard!)  That's why I said, "all Churches in the Orthodox communion" because the "true" varieties are not technically in the Orthodox communion (just like the SSPX is a Catholic Church but is in schism from the RCC).

I just didn't want to open up another can of worms ;-)

anastasios

[AlaskanOrthodox]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Bretheren:

Here is a sampling of the Isabel Florence Hapgood's Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic APostolic Chorch Seventh Edition, 1996, "Office for the Receiving into the Orthodox Faith such persons as have not been presviously Orthodox" (pp. 455-

Bishop/Priest: Wilt thou renounce the errors and false doctrines of the Roman-Latin (or Armenian, or Lutheran, or Reformed) Confession?

And he shall reply: I will.

Bishop/Priest: Dost thou desire to enter into and abide in the communion of the Orthodox Catholic Faith?

Answer: I do.

Then the Bishop/Priest, rising signeth him with his right hand, in the form of a cross saying:

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

(I'll skip to the Renunciations)

(Convert from the Roman/Latin Confession)

Bishop/Priest: Dost thou renounce the false doctrine that, for the expression of the dogma touching the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the declaration of our Savior Jesus Christ himself: "who preceedeth from the Father": doth not siffice; and that the addition, of man's invention: "and from the Son": is required?

Answer: I do

Bishop/Priest: Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that it doth not suffice to confess our Lord Jesus Christ as the head of the Universal Church; and that a man, to wit, the Bishop of Rome, can be the head of Christ's Body, that is to say, of the whole Church?

Answer: I do.

Bishop/Priest: Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that the holy Apostles did not receive from our Lord equal power, but that the holy Apostle Peter was their Prince: And that the Bishop of Rome alone is his successor: And that the Bishops of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and others are not, equally with the Bishop of Rome, successors of the Apostles?

Answer: I do.

Bishop/Priest:  Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of those who think that the Pope of Rome is superior to the Oecumenical Councils, and infallible in faith, notwithstanding the fact that several of the Popes have been heretics, and condemned as such by Councils?

Answer: I do.

Bishop/Priest: Dost thou renounce all the other doctrines of the Western Confession, both old and new, which are contrary to the Word of God, and to the true tradition of the Church, and to the decrees of the Seven Oecumenical Councils?

Answer: I do.
------------------------

So that is the specific Hapgood renunciation of a Latin Catholic who desires to enter Orthodoxy;  the service is quite impressive.

Just thought I would give those who have never read it a nibble .

Before I purchased this little gem I had no idea that Isabel Hapgood was a Protestant Episcopalian ;  It seems when the Episcopal Church was in good favor with Orthodox at that time it was seen as containing some hope for reconciliation.

I her Preface she writes:

:I have used the King James version of the Bible for the Scripture lessons; and the Psalter contained in the Book of Common Prayer for the Psalms and Verses, with occasional exceptions, when the exigencies of the Slavonic version or adaption to special cases or services required slight changes...I alone am personally responsible for everything: the suggestion that the book was needed, and the plan without which it would have been impossible; for the execution; for ocassional invented words, and for the language, in general and particular, except in the case of the incomparable rendering of the Prayer of St. Chrysostom, which I have taken from the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer; and of course from the passages from the Bible as above stated."

Very interesting indeed.  And this all was approved by Patriarch Tikon.  Aside from a few latinizations it is a nice resource;  although if I was clergy I would only use it as a reference and not a Service Book, since we have moved forward in scholarship and have better Liturgikons et al these days.

In Christ,


Alexis

[Hypo-Ortho]

Hapgood was used to the letter when my family and I were received into Holy Orthodoxy through the offices of the OCA from the Unia--indeed, the priest receiving us did not differentiate us from the Latins because, as he said, we held the same faith as the Latins.  And so, we were Chrismated, Confessed and Communed just like Latins would have been, and not merely just Confessed and Communed with a Profession of Faith as most Liturgikons would have had it for Uniates.  Of course, this was more than 25 years ago.

Hypo-Ortho

[Anastasios]

Hapgood was used to the letter when my family and I were received into Holy Orthodoxy through the offices of the OCA from the Unia--indeed, the priest receiving us did not differentiate us from the Latins because, as he said, we held the same faith as the Latins.  And so, we were Chrismated, Confessed and Communed just like Latins would have been, and not merely just Confessed and Communed with a Profession of Faith as most Liturgikons would have had it for Uniates.  Of course, this was more than 25 years ago.

Hypo-Ortho

I find this interesting since it is my understanding that the idea was not so much what the faith was, but if the form of the sacrament was correct.  Uniates were only confessed versus chrismation because their Catholic chrismation was done "the right way" externally whereas the Latins were anointed on the forehead only.

anastasios

[Saint Polycarp]

It seems this thread kinda shows how fractioned the Church really is. Between the thousands of protestant sects and the many Orthodox sects and then the different sects all claiming to be Catholic we have a real mess.
How sad for our commonly professed faith in One Lord One Faith One baptism
Peace,
Polycarp

[AlaskanOrthodox]

Again, it is case-by-case, but I do remember a Carpatho-Russian Orthodox priest I talked to tell me his Jurisdiction, ACROD, will only confess/commune Eastern Catholics.  Some ACROD parishes, he told me, will just register them and require nothing except sacramental participation and STEWARDSHIP .  Can we say EEECCCCOOOONNNNOOOOMMMMIIIIIIAAAAA!

Sheeesh!

But hey they are so close and nearly identicle maybe registration may "fill in" the Grace that was lacking

[Hypo-Ortho]

Alexis, in the days when we were received into Holy Orthodoxy, the "Byzantine-Slavonic-Greek" Catholics of Ruthenian Rite were outdoing the Latins in the profession of their ROMAN Catholicism.  Who cannot remember the image of Bishop Nicholas T. Elko of Pittsburgh?!

It was the Melkites at their eparchial seminary in Newton, MA, who provided the bridge from the Unia to Orthodoxy for me.

Hypo-Ortho

[AlaskanOrthodox]

Bishop Elko (As I am sure he liked to be called) was before I was born.  My former priest told me he introduced alot of "novus ordoism" into Ruthenian parishes; like taking away the icon screens and celebrating "mass" facing the people.  It sounded like a scary time for the Ruthenian Church.  I don't think all the Ruthenian parishes experimented like that though.  Tell us some stories; it would be nice to know.

Thank you.

[Anastasios]

Elko was literally taken hostage by the Vatican (they took away his passport on an ad lumina visit) until he got a reporter to do an expose so he could escape.  The Vatican let him remain a bishop--only they made him a LATIN bishop and forbade him to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in the USA ever again (he would slip into Canada sometimes when he "missed it").  He was an Archbishop but they made him coajudictor (sp?) to the Latin BISHOP of Cincinatti--something unprecedented in the life of the Church.  When his bishop died he tried to take posession of the Cathedral--the priests locked him out ;-)

He even wrote a book about his experience getting kicked out of the Metropolia.  The villian of the book, "the wiley Seminary dean" was actually the future Bp Andrew Pataki, still in power in Passaic.  Very interesting.

Not to mention other Byz. Cath highlights, like when the descendent of Maria Theresa, an Austrian princess (titular) walked through the royal doors and received communion in the hand at the altar in the 1950's era consecration of Bp Daniel Ivanch in Pittsburgh, or the discovery later that Bp Ivancho was married, leading to his resignation as bishop...

ah, the Ruthenians.  You can't get enough of them! (I like em though very much!)

anastasios

[Hypo-Ortho]

It was the little things, like saying the "Hail Mary" the right way, i.e., the Latin way.

The emphasis on the once-a-year "Peter's Pence" collection for the support of the Vatican, moreso than in any Latin parish.

The complete brick wall put up when I suggested that the "Filioque" be removed from the Creed during Liturgy, as I experienced it at the Melkite seminary.

The complete ignorance of the Apostles' Fast, to which I was introduced for the first time at the Melkite seminary--and it put me in shock that this was completely and utterly neglected and ignored in my Ruthenian Rite parish.

The endless liturgical abbreviations.  The rank hostility to anything Orthodox.  Why?

Hypo-Ortho

[Father Peter]

some of whom I do not (again, not like my opinion is the standard!)  That's why I said, "all Churches in the Orthodox communion" because the "true" varieties are not technically in the Orthodox communion (just like the SSPX is a Catholic Church but is in schism from the RCC).

I was just trying to prise the can open a little  

But seriously, is the True Church of XYZ not Orthodox because it is not in communion with 'mainline' EO?

Was ECOF Orthodox when it was under the care of a mainline church, did it cease to be Orthodox when it wasn't and then did it become Orthodox again under the Rumanians?

I guess I mean is communion a measure of Orthodoxy? It is an indicator but is it a strict test?

Peter Theodore

[Justinianus]

I have had similar experiences as Hypo-Orthodox with the Byzantine Church I used to belong to.  Worshipping in that church one would think they were in a Roman church.  No iconostasis, no Holy Communion with young children, Rosary sessions, and a 40 minute Divine Liturgy.   It was very different from the Ukrainian Catholic Churchs I belonged to in Rhode Island and California.  The Ukrainian churchs had the liturgy very similar to the OCA Orthodox chuch I belong to now.   It at least seems to me from my personal experiences that the Ukrainain Catholics are more conservative and more Orthodox in their liturgy than the Ruthenians.

[Linus7]

Again, it is case-by-case, but I do remember a Carpatho-Russian Orthodox priest I talked to tell me his Jurisdiction, ACROD, will only confess/commune Eastern Catholics.  Some ACROD parishes, he told me, will just register them and require nothing except sacramental participation and STEWARDSHIP .  Can we say EEECCCCOOOONNNNOOOOMMMMIIIIIIAAAAA!

Sheeesh!

But hey they are so close and nearly identicle maybe registration may "fill in" the Grace that was lacking

I belong to an ACROD parish. ACROD is Orthodox.

I am not familiar with the procedure by which Byzantine Catholics are admitted to the Church, but I have every confidence in our Metropolitan to do what is right.

As for that remark about ACROD being "nearly identicle [sic]" to Byzantine Catholicism, that is only true insofar as Byzantine Catholicism resembles Orthodoxy in general. If ACROD is nearly identical to Byzantine Catholicism, then so are the OCA, the Antiochians, the Greeks, and every other Orthodox church - even ROCOR.

You should stop and think before offering careless and unsupported (except by hearsay) criticism of an Orthodox diocese and, by implication, its bishop.

[AlaskanOrthodox]

Beloved-in-the Lord Linus:

It was a tongue in cheek post.   Apologies for the mis-understanding.  And yes, your Jurisdiction is most certainly in union with the EP and therefore is recognized as Orthodox at least by the mainline Jurisdictions.

The reality is that ethnic Orthodox Jurisdictions that have a parrallel with Eastern Catholic Churches tend to use the most economy in reception.  As my example with yours, but some priests may be more stricter in the reception of converts; indeed it is wrong to generalize.

Forgive me dear brother in Christ :'(

Many Years to you and your family!

In Christ,


Alexis

[The young fogey]

As for that remark about ACROD being "nearly identicle [sic]" to Byzantine Catholicism, that is only true insofar as Byzantine Catholicism resembles Orthodoxy in general. If ACROD is nearly identical to Byzantine Catholicism, then so are the OCA, the Antiochians, the Greeks, and every other Orthodox church - even ROCOR.

History lesson:

1. Ruthenians are the most latinized BCs.

2. ACROD separated from them over disciplinary matters in the 1930s and for decades after was practically indistinguishable from them, RC practices and all. (Two sources have told me that into the 1960s they still used the filioque in the Creed. This schism obviously wasn't really about niceties of doctrine! An ethnic turf war, vs. the RCs, from the get-go.)

3. This is changing for a few reasons: ACROD today is more like other Orthodox with only a residual RC practice here or there - an older archpriest who goes by 'Monsignor' and wears a monsignorial cassock (like the late Mgr John Yurcisin, who died this year), and maybe a church somewhere that still binates (two Liturgies in a day by the same priest and/or on the same altar). After 60+ years nominally under the Greeks they were bound to adapt. Today, about the only distinction from other Orthodox that's obvious is the unique Ruthenian music. Another reason is, thanks to being kicked in the pants by Rome, Ruthenian Catholics themselves are halfheartedly delatinizing. And finally, thanks to ecumenism, the two groups now talk to each other and work on some things together, which makes perfect sense since ACROD today, a small group, consists largely of born members.

</surface>

[Linus7]

Deak AlaskanOrthodox -

No harm done. I guess I misunderstood and got a little crabby. Sorry.

Serge -

Interesting history lesson, but my own personal experience has been quite different. I have only experienced the latter part of the history you described. My own parish has almost no persons of actual Carpatho-Russian descent and is made up of converts (from both Protestantism and RCism) and immigrants (Russians, Greeks, Arabs, Bulgarians, Macedonians, etc.).

We are not as viscerally anti-Roman Catholic as some I have seen within Orthodoxy, but we have no Latin practices or doctrines.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Convert Issues (Moderator: Thomas) > Topic: How were you received into the Orthodox Church?