OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 30, 2014, 04:35:30 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: EP Recognized the Metropolia?  (Read 1761 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Sirach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


Just trying to learn something.


« on: January 17, 2012, 07:19:54 PM »

From the OCA website:

"When the Metropolia refused to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate (from 1921 to 1970) the Constantinople Patriarchate remained in sacramental communion with the Metropolia in America in spite of Moscow’s interdiction and charges of schism."

Is this true?

Source:  On what basis did the Church of Russia offer its recognition to the Metropolia and proclaim it officially as the Orthodox Church in America?
Logged
Orual
Orthodoxy = 7, not 3
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Sunday Morning Costume Parade
Posts: 931


I'm just here for the food.


« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2012, 07:56:10 PM »

Yep.  But when the Metropolia asked about placing itself under the EP, they were told to reconcile with Moscow because they were Russians.
Logged

He spoke it as kindly and heartily as could be; as if a man dashed a gallon of cold water in your broth and never doubted you'd like it all the better. 

- C.S. Lewis, Till We Have Faces
f.k.a. Matron.a
Sirach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


Just trying to learn something.


« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2012, 01:59:09 AM »

What year did the Metropolia ask about placing itself under the EP?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,458



« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2012, 02:03:31 AM »

What year did the Metropolia ask about placing itself under the EP?
1967, IIRC.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,885


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2012, 02:20:24 AM »

What year did the Metropolia ask about placing itself under the EP?
1967, IIRC.

Considering that Metropolitian Philaret sent a letter to the EP in December of 1965 to protest the lifting of the anathemas between the Greek Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church of 1054, it is not surprising that the EP would tell the Metropolia to reconcile with Moscow. With the EP pushing for ecumenism and the New Calendar, those activities would have been red flags.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/philaret_lifting.aspx
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Sirach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


Just trying to learn something.


« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2012, 02:25:51 AM »

Could you elaborate on that?  I don't see the connection.
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,885


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2012, 02:27:06 AM »

Back in 1965, wasn't the Metropolia in the USA part of the ROCOR?

I did not study the Russian history in America.
When did the OCA begin to exist apart from the Metropolia?
When did the ROCOR begin to exist apart from the Metropolia?

Why could ACROD go under the EP if the OCA, the Metropolia, and ROCOR were not able to do so?
« Last Edit: January 18, 2012, 02:32:19 AM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2012, 02:57:08 AM »

Back in 1965, wasn't the Metropolia in the USA part of the ROCOR?

I did not study the Russian history in America.
When did the OCA begin to exist apart from the Metropolia?
When did the ROCOR begin to exist apart from the Metropolia?

Why could ACROD go under the EP if the OCA, the Metropolia, and ROCOR were not able to do so?


Metropolia = OCA.   (AFKA the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America)
ROCOR was completely separate
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,885


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2012, 03:07:50 AM »

Back in 1965, wasn't the Metropolia in the USA part of the ROCOR?

I did not study the Russian history in America.
When did the OCA begin to exist apart from the Metropolia?
When did the ROCOR begin to exist apart from the Metropolia?

Why could ACROD go under the EP if the OCA, the Metropolia, and ROCOR were not able to do so?


Metropolia = OCA.   (AFKA the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America)
ROCOR was completely separate

That is where the confusion comes in.
I talked with a hieromonk who said that the Metropolia later split into the ROCOR and the OCA.
Many OCA churches are former Ruthenians who were led to Orthodoxy by St. Alexis Toth.

However, I have seen churches with the corner stone: Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, and they now belong to the ACROD. The ACROD used to be under the Catholic Church, but are now under the EP.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2012, 03:13:45 AM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,020



« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2012, 07:12:34 AM »

The Metropolia's relationship with ROCOR was rather tenuous throughout their nearly 25 year association.  Although formally a part of ROCOR, the Metropolia did not function in compliance with ROCOR's statutes, primarily because of the authority the Metropolia allowed to the priests and laity through the All American Councils and the Metropolitan Council.  Even when ROCOR adopted its statutes, the Metropolia sent a letter taking issue with them.  There's much more involved, too much to elaborate upon here; however, the Metropolia (the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Metropolia of North America) considered itself a metropolitan district of the Church of Russia, which could not administratively be directly under the Church of Russia due to the Communist's authority over the Russian Church.  Its relationship with ROCOR was essentially a fraternal association with fellow "Russians" of the Russian diaspora, it was not perceived as a canonical dependence.  The relationship varied over the years, but after WWII, the traditional Metropolia members, priests, bishops, and laity, within North America, desired to petition Moscow to reestablish their relationship with the Church of Russia; the true ROCOR followers, immigrants mostly, did not agree.  However, the Moscow Patriarchate required that the Metropolia agree to not criticise the Soviet government and would not give them full authority to elected their own primate.  So, the Metropolia decided to maintain the status quo of self-declared "Temporary Autonomy."  1946 or so marks the period when the Metropolia remained estranged from the Church of Russia and not affiliated with ROCOR.


ACROD's history was that they were of the Byzantine Rite under the Roman Catholic Church, but in America, the Roman Catholic bishops were not tolerant of them and their Byzantine ways, as they had been in the Czechoslovakia and the Carpatho-Russian regions of Eastern Europe.  ACROD wanted no part of the Russification that had been imposed by the Metropolia upon the Byzantine Rite parishes that had flocked to the Metropolia in the early part of the 20th century.  So they approached Archbishop Athenagoras of America of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, who referred them to the Ecumenical Patriarchate with his recommendation.

The GOAA had maintained communal relations with the Metropolia throughout their schism with Moscow.  When Fr. Alexander Schmemann approached Patriarch Athenagoras at the Phanar about a canonical relationship ('67+/-), +Athenagoras could not accommodate his request and maintain Constantinople's good relations with its sister church, the Patriarchate of Moscow, a church with which +Athenagoras had made great strides during the 1950's and early '60's to accommodate the Russian Patriarch's various grievances.  (As patriarch, +Athenagoras devoted much effort to improve pan-Orthodox relations in order to convene conferences among the Holy Orthodox Churches.)

It should be noted too, throughout the 20th century, until the formal dissolution of the Russian Patriarchal Exarchate, relations among the three Russian jurisdictions in North America (except for the Metropolia-ROCOR relationship, such that it was), was hostile.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,237


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 18, 2012, 11:54:45 AM »

The Metropolia's relationship with ROCOR was rather tenuous throughout their nearly 25 year association.  Although formally a part of ROCOR, the Metropolia did not function in compliance with ROCOR's statutes, primarily because of the authority the Metropolia allowed to the priests and laity through the All American Councils and the Metropolitan Council.  Even when ROCOR adopted its statutes, the Metropolia sent a letter taking issue with them.  There's much more involved, too much to elaborate upon here; however, the Metropolia (the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Metropolia of North America) considered itself a metropolitan district of the Church of Russia, which could not administratively be directly under the Church of Russia due to the Communist's authority over the Russian Church.  Its relationship with ROCOR was essentially a fraternal association with fellow "Russians" of the Russian diaspora, it was not perceived as a canonical dependence.  The relationship varied over the years, but after WWII, the traditional Metropolia members, priests, bishops, and laity, within North America, desired to petition Moscow to reestablish their relationship with the Church of Russia; the true ROCOR followers, immigrants mostly, did not agree.  However, the Moscow Patriarchate required that the Metropolia agree to not criticise the Soviet government and would not give them full authority to elected their own primate.  So, the Metropolia decided to maintain the status quo of self-declared "Temporary Autonomy."  1946 or so marks the period when the Metropolia remained estranged from the Church of Russia and not affiliated with ROCOR.


ACROD's history was that they were of the Byzantine Rite under the Roman Catholic Church, but in America, the Roman Catholic bishops were not tolerant of them and their Byzantine ways, as they had been in the Czechoslovakia and the Carpatho-Russian regions of Eastern Europe.  ACROD wanted no part of the Russification that had been imposed by the Metropolia upon the Byzantine Rite parishes that had flocked to the Metropolia in the early part of the 20th century.  So they approached Archbishop Athenagoras of America of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, who referred them to the Ecumenical Patriarchate with his recommendation.

The GOAA had maintained communal relations with the Metropolia throughout their schism with Moscow.  When Fr. Alexander Schmemann approached Patriarch Athenagoras at the Phanar about a canonical relationship ('67+/-), +Athenagoras could not accommodate his request and maintain Constantinople's good relations with its sister church, the Patriarchate of Moscow, a church with which +Athenagoras had made great strides during the 1950's and early '60's to accommodate the Russian Patriarch's various grievances.  (As patriarch, +Athenagoras devoted much effort to improve pan-Orthodox relations in order to convene conferences among the Holy Orthodox Churches.)

It should be noted too, throughout the 20th century, until the formal dissolution of the Russian Patriarchal Exarchate, relations among the three Russian jurisdictions in North America (except for the Metropolia-ROCOR relationship, such that it was), was hostile.

That was well-stated.

As to the use of the term 'Russian Greek Catholic' on the cornerstones of churches of various jurisdictions being used in the late 19th and early 20th centuries it really signifies little as to whether the Church was Greek Catholic or Orthodox, rather it comes from terminology used under the Austro-Hungarians to distinguish the eastern churches under their control (all Greek Catholic in Europe by the beginning of the the 19th century in what is now Slovakia, Hungary and Ukraine) from the Roman Rite churches.

'Rus'ka Greko-Katolik' was mistranslated in English as 'Russian Greek Catholic' rather than 'Ruthenian Greek Catholic' -Ruthenian being a Latin imposed term not used or found in the Rusyn language. (This translation as Russian also has a lot to do with the disintegration of the Hapsburg empire in the early20th century, the rise of Russian influence as a result of anti-Hungarian sentiments among the Ruthenians and as an effort to stake their ground in the new world from the Romans.) The churches established as Orthodox following St. Alexis inserted the word 'Orthodox' after the word 'Russian' to distinguish them clearly from the Greek Catholics. Many older OCA parishes are still legally known as 'St. So and so Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church'. That is why you find that. Likewise in ACROD, the charters frequently state "Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic" in the legal title. Most ACROD and OCA parishes  today simply refer to themselves as 'St. So and So Orthodox Church' as opposed to Greeks, Ukrainians, Serbs, Romanians and Antiochians who keep the old world names in their public titles.

This comes from the reality that the Rusyn/Ruthenian founders of the OCA and ACROD had no clearly defined national homeland but were scattered across regions of what is now Slovakia,Ukraine, Romania and Serbia. It also has much to do in my opinion with the OCA's five decade desire to be recognized as an American church since its founders never had a homeland 'per se' until they came to America.

This could turn into a whole tangent on that subject alone, but it has been discussed to death here and elsewhere and really is of little consequence to Maria's question or the OP.
Logged
Sirach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


Just trying to learn something.


« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2012, 12:51:21 PM »

Basil 320 and podkarpatska,

Thanks for the background info.
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,885


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #12 on: January 18, 2012, 04:16:13 PM »

Thanks for the brief histories of the Metropolia, OCA, ROCOR, and ACROD.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #13 on: January 18, 2012, 06:13:00 PM »

This comes from the reality that the Rusyn/Ruthenian founders of the OCA and ACROD had no clearly defined national homeland but were scattered across regions of what is now Slovakia,Ukraine, Romania and Serbia. It also has much to do in my opinion with the OCA's five decade desire to be recognized as an American church since its founders never had a homeland 'per se' until they came to America.

A really interesting observation.  Thanks for posting. 
Logged
Sirach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


Just trying to learn something.


« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2012, 08:18:39 PM »

The second sentence in the OP I quoted above is:

Now, ironically, when Moscow has decided to act administratively toward the Metropolia and to recognize its spiritual and canonical needs by granting the long-desired and long-overdue decree of autocephaly, the Patriarchate of Constantinople and its Greek Archdiocese in America have refused to add its blessings to the act.

Given the additional information and nuances noted by Basil 320 and podkarpatska, is the OCA right to characterize the EP’s post-1970 refusal to recognize their autocephaly as “ironic?” 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,458



« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2012, 09:30:41 PM »

The second sentence in the OP I quoted above is:

Now, ironically, when Moscow has decided to act administratively toward the Metropolia and to recognize its spiritual and canonical needs by granting the long-desired and long-overdue decree of autocephaly, the Patriarchate of Constantinople and its Greek Archdiocese in America have refused to add its blessings to the act.

Given the additional information and nuances noted by Basil 320 and podkarpatska, is the OCA right to characterize the EP’s post-1970 refusal to recognize their autocephaly as “ironic?”  
No.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2012, 09:31:29 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,332


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2012, 09:38:46 PM »

so maybe I should have started a separate thread on this, but i'm hoping to get a low-post count answer on this:

How come the OCA never set up a Serbian division?  they pretty much got everyone else in there, but the Serbs. 

I would imagine for a couple of reasons:  the Serbs already had an existing & alive church/functioning here. 

Also, the fact that they just didn't ask?  And the other "ethnic groups" did? 

Hopefully there's a short answer to this, but I think it plays into the OP (i'm hoping it does anyway). 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,458



« Reply #17 on: January 18, 2012, 09:49:18 PM »

so maybe I should have started a separate thread on this, but i'm hoping to get a low-post count answer on this:

How come the OCA never set up a Serbian division?  they pretty much got everyone else in there, but the Serbs. 

I would imagine for a couple of reasons:  the Serbs already had an existing & alive church/functioning here. 

Also, the fact that they just didn't ask?  And the other "ethnic groups" did? 

Hopefully there's a short answer to this, but I think it plays into the OP (i'm hoping it does anyway). 
Are you talking about in 1970, Father, or from the beginning of Orthodoxy in North America.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,020



« Reply #18 on: January 18, 2012, 10:29:55 PM »

I think the North American Russian Church's mission did attempt to establish a Serbian mission under the first American born man to be ordained an Orthodox priest in North America, Fr. Sebastian (I can't recall his last name, "Dabovich"?) in Chicago, but he emigrated to Serbia to assist during their circa WWI quest for independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  Soon thereafter, November, 1917, the Metropolia's administrative ability fell apart, due to the end of the Russian Church's financial subsidies, the mortgaging of church properties by Archbishop Alexandr, and not much later, the competition from the non-canonical, so called "Living" or "Renovationist" Church.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2012, 10:37:46 PM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Sirach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


Just trying to learn something.


« Reply #19 on: January 19, 2012, 01:02:03 PM »

The second sentence in the OP I quoted above is:

Now, ironically, when Moscow has decided to act administratively toward the Metropolia and to recognize its spiritual and canonical needs by granting the long-desired and long-overdue decree of autocephaly, the Patriarchate of Constantinople and its Greek Archdiocese in America have refused to add its blessings to the act.

Given the additional information and nuances noted by Basil 320 and podkarpatska, is the OCA right to characterize the EP’s post-1970 refusal to recognize their autocephaly as “ironic?”  
No.

If no, then what IS the correct (or better, or best) way to understand the EP’s post-1970 refusal to recognize their autocephaly?

« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 01:02:42 PM by Sirach » Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,237


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 19, 2012, 01:52:06 PM »

The second sentence in the OP I quoted above is:

Now, ironically, when Moscow has decided to act administratively toward the Metropolia and to recognize its spiritual and canonical needs by granting the long-desired and long-overdue decree of autocephaly, the Patriarchate of Constantinople and its Greek Archdiocese in America have refused to add its blessings to the act.

Given the additional information and nuances noted by Basil 320 and podkarpatska, is the OCA right to characterize the EP’s post-1970 refusal to recognize their autocephaly as “ironic?”  
No.

If no, then what IS the correct (or better, or best) way to understand the EP’s post-1970 refusal to recognize their autocephaly?



Church politics and global politics and arguments about 'protocol.'
Logged
Sirach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


Just trying to learn something.


« Reply #21 on: January 19, 2012, 02:13:58 PM »

Assuming that "politics" is a desire for good government (at least from the perspective of those who want to govern), what sort of church and global politics are you referring to?

Also, why is protocol important?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,458



« Reply #22 on: January 19, 2012, 02:32:20 PM »

The second sentence in the OP I quoted above is:

Now, ironically, when Moscow has decided to act administratively toward the Metropolia and to recognize its spiritual and canonical needs by granting the long-desired and long-overdue decree of autocephaly, the Patriarchate of Constantinople and its Greek Archdiocese in America have refused to add its blessings to the act.

Given the additional information and nuances noted by Basil 320 and podkarpatska, is the OCA right to characterize the EP’s post-1970 refusal to recognize their autocephaly as “ironic?”  
No.

If no, then what IS the correct (or better, or best) way to understand the EP’s post-1970 refusal to recognize their autocephaly?
Ooops!  Sorry. Yes. Ironic is correct.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,237


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 19, 2012, 02:39:08 PM »

Assuming that "politics" is a desire for good government (at least from the perspective of those who want to govern), what sort of church and global politics are you referring to?

Also, why is protocol important?

Now, I would argue that in the context of this discussion, 'why is protocol important?' is an ironic comment!
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,697



« Reply #24 on: January 19, 2012, 03:39:06 PM »

so maybe I should have started a separate thread on this, but i'm hoping to get a low-post count answer on this:

How come the OCA never set up a Serbian division?  they pretty much got everyone else in there, but the Serbs. 

I would imagine for a couple of reasons:  the Serbs already had an existing & alive church/functioning here. 

Also, the fact that they just didn't ask?  And the other "ethnic groups" did? 

Hopefully there's a short answer to this, but I think it plays into the OP (i'm hoping it does anyway). 

I would think that Basil and Isa will correct me (at least I hope so) but I think that one reason was the very close relationship between ROCOR and the Serbian Church. Another reason may have been the close association of the Serbian Church with the national/ethnic aspirations of the Serbs, particularly after the Second Balkan War and certainly after WWI, when the Serbian attempt to Serbianize all her subjects within Greater Serbia or Yugoslavia put her at odds with the Bulgarians and Macedono-Bulgarians. Thus, Serbia's natural allies in the Balkans were the Church of Romania, Constantinople and the Church of Greece.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Sirach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


Just trying to learn something.


« Reply #25 on: January 19, 2012, 07:22:02 PM »

Is the EP currently in "sacramental communion" with the OCA?  (As it was with the Metropolia prior to 1970.)
Logged
Sirach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


Just trying to learn something.


« Reply #26 on: January 19, 2012, 07:23:38 PM »

Assuming that "politics" is a desire for good government (at least from the perspective of those who want to govern), what sort of church and global politics are you referring to?

Also, why is protocol important?

Now, I would argue that in the context of this discussion, 'why is protocol important?' is an ironic comment!

Well... OK, but you brought it up.  Please clarify why you mentioned it.  Thanks.   Smiley
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,885


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #27 on: January 19, 2012, 07:34:28 PM »

Is the EP currently in "sacramental communion" with the OCA?  (As it was with the Metropolia prior to 1970.)

I do not know about the EP, but Bishop Benjamin (OCA) does concelebrate Vespers with the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of San Francisco, the Serbian Orthodox Bishop, and the Antiochian Archbishop Joseph.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 07:35:30 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Sirach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


Just trying to learn something.


« Reply #28 on: January 19, 2012, 09:18:17 PM »

Does Patriarch Irinej and the Serbian Orthodox Church recognize the autocephaly of the OCA?

Does Patriarch Ignatius IV and the Antiochian Orthodox Church recognize the autocephaly of the OCA?
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 09:23:14 PM by Sirach » Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #29 on: January 19, 2012, 11:30:13 PM »

Is the EP currently in "sacramental communion" with the OCA?  (As it was with the Metropolia prior to 1970.)

Yes
Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,020



« Reply #30 on: January 19, 2012, 11:53:31 PM »

Neither the Churches of Antioch or Serbia have formally recognized the autocephaly of the OCA, they have maintained communion and fraternal relations with them, and have not, at least publically, challenged the OCA's autocephaly.  I think, and could be wrong, that the Serbian Church issued a "wait and see" type opinion of the autocephaly of the OCA around the time that the Church of Russia issued the Tomos of Autocephaly for the OCA.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Sirach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


Just trying to learn something.


« Reply #31 on: January 20, 2012, 12:17:47 AM »

Is there any Autocephalous Church that has NOT "maintained communion and fraternal relations" with the OCA?
Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,020



« Reply #32 on: January 20, 2012, 12:20:11 AM »

No.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Sirach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


Just trying to learn something.


« Reply #33 on: January 20, 2012, 12:33:43 AM »

Given that all of the Autocephalous Churches have maintained communion and fraternal relations with the OCA, what is the problem with recognizing the autocephaly of the OCA?
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #34 on: January 20, 2012, 12:37:55 AM »

There is no agreement on who can issue autocephaly or what the process should be. My understanding is that the Russians take it that any Church may grant autocephaly to a part of itself because it is an internal matter. The EP maintains that only the EP has the authority to grant autocephaly. At least that is my understanding. The russian perspective makes more sense to me. All we can do right now is agree to disagree.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #35 on: January 20, 2012, 10:13:54 AM »

The second (and IMO, more important) reason is that if the EP approved the OCA's autocephaly it would have to transfer all it's American parishes to the OCA what would ruin them financially.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 10:14:09 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Sirach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


Just trying to learn something.


« Reply #36 on: January 20, 2012, 02:35:09 PM »

Do we have any reason to believe that the OCA would continue the GOAA financial support of the EP if the GOAA transferred their parishes to the OCA?
Logged
Sirach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


Just trying to learn something.


« Reply #37 on: January 20, 2012, 02:39:12 PM »

There is no agreement on who can issue autocephaly or what the process should be...

If there is no agreement, then what is keeping the other Autocephalous Churches from recognizing the OCA's autocephaly?
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,237


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 20, 2012, 02:45:47 PM »

Do we have any reason to believe that the OCA would continue the GOAA financial support of the EP if the GOAA transferred their parishes to the OCA?

Your question assumes that the current OCA would simply be wrapped around existing parishes of other current canonical jurisdictions. I believe that to be a false assumption. If all existing Orthodox parishes were to be 'transferred' to the OCA, such OCA would bear little, if any resemblance to the one many of you are familiar with.

From the constitution and by-laws governing it (there are theological and eccelesiological problems in the minds of many with the current rules governing the OCA - and most of the rest of us as well), to the Diocesan (lots of property issues there - including existing trust funds, bequests etc....)  to the parish level (the level of congregationalism present in existing parish goverance) - much would change and not all at once.

The composition of the Synod would likely be the first to change and in all likelihood, whoever the then-current Metropolitan of the OCA was would resign as a a courtesy to the new organizationas a new Synod and Metropolitan would be installed following the first national council or Sobor of the Church.

Most significantly, for better or worse, the demographics of such a new entity would be entirely different than the demographics of any existing jurisdiction. The issue of financial support for the old world patriarchates would be a hot issue for some - many Hellenes would want to continue to support the EP, Ukrainians would seek support for parishes in Ukraine while most Slavs would not. There would be no support for financing the MP as they don't need it, but other old world churches would 'plead' a case or at least have their advocates.

So to ask what 'the OCA' would do is really a meaningless question, as the new 'OCA' would be a far different entity than the one currently constituted.
Logged
Sirach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


Just trying to learn something.


« Reply #39 on: January 22, 2012, 01:30:07 PM »

Another set of nuances to consider.   Huh  Thanks.   Smiley
Logged
katherine 2001
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 886


Eastern Orthodox Church--Established in 33 A.D.


« Reply #40 on: January 22, 2012, 04:59:13 PM »

Is the EP currently in "sacramental communion" with the OCA?  (As it was with the Metropolia prior to 1970.)

I do not know about the EP, but Bishop Benjamin (OCA) does concelebrate Vespers with the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of San Francisco, the Serbian Orthodox Bishop, and the Antiochian Archbishop Joseph.

Not only that, but here in Montana, the Serbian priest in Butte serves the OCA mission in Helena that doesn't have a priest.  Until the Greek parish in Missoula finally got a priest, the Serbian priest served that church as well.  +Bishop BENJAMIN (OCA) and +Bishop MAXIM (Serbian) worked that out. 
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #41 on: January 22, 2012, 07:06:46 PM »

Do we have any reason to believe that the OCA would continue the GOAA financial support of the EP if the GOAA transferred their parishes to the OCA?

Your question assumes that the current OCA would simply be wrapped around existing parishes of other current canonical jurisdictions. I believe that to be a false assumption. If all existing Orthodox parishes were to be 'transferred' to the OCA, such OCA would bear little, if any resemblance to the one many of you are familiar with.

From the constitution and by-laws governing it (there are theological and eccelesiological problems in the minds of many with the current rules governing the OCA - and most of the rest of us as well), to the Diocesan (lots of property issues there - including existing trust funds, bequests etc....)  to the parish level (the level of congregationalism present in existing parish goverance) - much would change and not all at once.

The composition of the Synod would likely be the first to change and in all likelihood, whoever the then-current Metropolitan of the OCA was would resign as a a courtesy to the new organizationas a new Synod and Metropolitan would be installed following the first national council or Sobor of the Church.

Most significantly, for better or worse, the demographics of such a new entity would be entirely different than the demographics of any existing jurisdiction. The issue of financial support for the old world patriarchates would be a hot issue for some - many Hellenes would want to continue to support the EP, Ukrainians would seek support for parishes in Ukraine while most Slavs would not. There would be no support for financing the MP as they don't need it, but other old world churches would 'plead' a case or at least have their advocates.

So to ask what 'the OCA' would do is really a meaningless question, as the new 'OCA' would be a far different entity than the one currently constituted.

Agreed. It would most definitely not be a matter of one Church being subsumed by another but rather a merger and the creation of a new Church.
Logged
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Online Online

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 972


WWW
« Reply #42 on: January 22, 2012, 10:55:57 PM »

I think the North American Russian Church's mission did attempt to establish a Serbian mission under the first American born man to be ordained an Orthodox priest in North America, Fr. Sebastian (I can't recall his last name, "Dabovich"?) in Chicago, but he emigrated to Serbia to assist during their circa WWI quest for independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

A photo of Father Sebastian from the Library of Congress' collection of photos from the Chicago Tribune

Quite a bit of material about Father Sebastian here at the Society for Orthodox Christian History in the Americas.

Many years,

Neil
Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,332


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #43 on: January 23, 2012, 12:47:13 PM »

Thanks for all this info guys.  I didn't even know about Fr. Sebastian. 

Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,458



« Reply #44 on: January 23, 2012, 01:03:29 PM »

Thanks for all this info guys.  I didn't even know about Fr. Sebastian.  
Fr. Chicago-boy, here is a picture of the soon to be canonized (CoS) st. Sebastian in the newly constructed Holy Trinity (OCA) Cathedral (notice the absence of the iconography) on Levett

Fr. Sebastian was the first European American born Orthodox priest (but just barely, his mother went into labor as their ship was passing into SF Golden Gate).  He was known as "the English priest" as he was the only one who spoke English natively.  There are collections of his sermons on google, and Holy Trinity San Francisco (OCA) on its web site have a number of things posted from his pen.  In fact I think it has, and I've posted here somewhere, his letter to Arbp. St. Tikhon about the founding of Greek Holy Trinity in SF.  He also founded the first Serbian Orthodox Church in North America, in Jackson.

Fr. Sebastian was slated by Abp. St. Tikhon to become the Serbian equivalent of St. Raphael Hawaweeny, with his cathedral in Chicago.  Most of Holy Trinity's parishioners at the time with Serbs, odd as the Serbian Holy Resurrection was started the same year, IIRC.

for more:
http://orthodoxhistory.org/tag/sebastian-dabovich/
« Last Edit: January 23, 2012, 01:29:50 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.148 seconds with 72 queries.