Orthodox Catholic Church in America

[JR]

I read an article yesterday written by a priest of the OCCA.

I would like your thoughts and opinions of the following:

They claim to be apostolic through the Old Catholic Church.

They have married Bishops.

They ordain women to the priesthood.

They claim to be fully Orthodox

I look forward to your responses, in Christ JR

Here is the page that I read:  http://vagantepriest.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/progressive-dynamic-tradition-part-ii.html

[Αριστοκλής]

I would think the blogs name says it all.

[jah777]

I would think the blogs name says it all.

Ditto.

If you are not in communion with the Orthodox Church, which is the body of Christ, supposed apostolic succession and claims to be "fully Orthodox" are meaningless. 

How can a group claim to be "fully Orthodox" when:

1) Their so-called "succession" is through the Old Catholics who were never Orthodox
2) None of the historical patriarchates or historical Orthodox churches recognize them as Orthodox
3) They admittedly have married bishops and women priests in complete contradiction to Orthodox practice

[JR]

I would think the blogs name says it all.

Ditto.

If you are not in communion with the Orthodox Church, which is the body of Christ, supposed apostolic succession and claims to be "fully Orthodox" are meaningless. 

How can a group claim to be "fully Orthodox" when:

1) Their so-called "succession" is through the Old Catholics who were never Orthodox
2) None of the historical patriarchates or historical Orthodox churches recognize them as Orthodox
3) They admittedly have married bishops and women priests in complete contradiction to Orthodox practice

I understand this, but what are they in relation to us? They can't be schismatic s because they were never part of us. They claim to have the same faith and beliefs apart from the married Bishops and women priests, if this is true then they are not heretics, not even heterodox.

So what are they? are they in a way like ROCOR used to be?

[jmbejdl]

I would think the blogs name says it all.

Ditto.

If you are not in communion with the Orthodox Church, which is the body of Christ, supposed apostolic succession and claims to be "fully Orthodox" are meaningless. 

How can a group claim to be "fully Orthodox" when:

1) Their so-called "succession" is through the Old Catholics who were never Orthodox
2) None of the historical patriarchates or historical Orthodox churches recognize them as Orthodox
3) They admittedly have married bishops and women priests in complete contradiction to Orthodox practice

I understand this, but what are they in relation to us? They can't be schismatic s because they were never part of us. They claim to have the same faith and beliefs apart from the married Bishops and women priests, if this is true then they are not heretics, not even heterodox.

So what are they? are they in a way like ROCOR used to be?

They're in no way like ROCOR used to be. The hierarchy of ROCOR was always in communion with some of the other local Churches just not all and their layfolk, to the best of my knowledge, were accepted as Orthodox by everyone and hence could commune in the other Orthodox churches.

These people are certainly heterodox. They aren't Orthodox because they are in communion with nobody and never have been. They don't adhere to the Orthodox faith and they don't have apostolic succession (even if they can show a succession of sorts, there is no valid apostolic succession without the Orthodox faith). If they aren't Orthodox they must be heterodox, because that's what it means - 'not Orthodox'.

James

[Αριστοκλής]

I would think the blogs name says it all.

Ditto.

If you are not in communion with the Orthodox Church, which is the body of Christ, supposed apostolic succession and claims to be "fully Orthodox" are meaningless. 

How can a group claim to be "fully Orthodox" when:

1) Their so-called "succession" is through the Old Catholics who were never Orthodox
2) None of the historical patriarchates or historical Orthodox churches recognize them as Orthodox
3) They admittedly have married bishops and women priests in complete contradiction to Orthodox practice

I understand this, but what are they in relation to us? They can't be schismatic s because they were never part of us. They claim to have the same faith and beliefs apart from the married Bishops and women priests, if this is true then they are not heretics, not even heterodox.

So what are they? are they in a way like ROCOR used to be?

Again, "in relation to us" they have nothing. I realize that a priest and/or bishop of theirs is a member here, but they simply are not Orthodox. There is no grey area.

[recent convert]

They are just another coterie of frauds cloaked in their own self righteousness.

[Michał Kalina]

Protestants.

[recent convert]

Protestants.

Or just like some the in house "synods in resistance"

[Michał Kalina]

Protestants.

Or just like some the in house "synods in resistance"

They usually do not ordain women or allow their bishops to marry.

[recent convert]

Protestants.

Or just like some the in house "synods in resistance"

They usually do not ordain women or allow their bishops to marry.

I mean in the aspect of being another clique that takes up a lot of web space & probably has more hierarchy than laity.

[Michał Kalina]

Protestants.

Or just like some the in house "synods in resistance"

They usually do not ordain women or allow their bishops to marry.

I mean in the aspect of being another clique that takes up a lot of web space & probably has more hierarchy than laity.

In this regard you are right.

[Basil 320]

This church can be equated with any self-created Protestant type church of the day.  There is no connection or relation whatsoever to the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church; "the Holy Churches of God."

Neither do not rank among the separated Old Calendar resisters, as they have no connection to the Orthodox Church; none!  And again I will restate what has been already noted above, there is nothing analogous to ROCOR's unfortunate status prior to their reconciliation with the Church of Russia.

I really resent these upstart churches using the name of Holy Orthodoxy.  We're small and substantially unknown in the West and all this does is confuse people, Orthodox Christians included.

[walter1234]

I want to ask one question.

Is there any difference between Eastern Orthodox Church and Orthodox Catholic Church?

[Michał Kalina]

Depends what you mean by "Orthodox Catholic Church".

[Monk Vasyl]

I would think the blogs name says it all.

Ditto.

If you are not in communion with the Orthodox Church, which is the body of Christ, supposed apostolic succession and claims to be "fully Orthodox" are meaningless. 

How can a group claim to be "fully Orthodox" when:

1) Their so-called "succession" is through the Old Catholics who were never Orthodox
2) None of the historical patriarchates or historical Orthodox churches recognize them as Orthodox
3) They admittedly have married bishops and women priests in complete contradiction to Orthodox practice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox-Catholic_Church_of_America_(OCCA)
The OCCA ordains openly lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual persons as clergy and blesses their unions as it does those of heterosexual couples. Access to the seven sacraments is offered to all individuals regardless of sex or sexual orientation.

No way are these people Orthodox.

[Alpo]

They claim to be apostolic through the Old Catholic Church.

Not Orthodox.

They have married Bishops.

Not Orthodox.

They ordain women to the priesthood.

Not Orthodox.

They claim to be fully Orthodox

Not Orthodox.

[Monk Vasyl]

Here's a link to their official web site: http://www.orthodoxcatholicchurch.org/index.html

Rather eye opening to say the least.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I really resent these upstart churches using the name of Holy Orthodoxy.  We're small and substantially unknown in the West and all this does is confuse people, Orthodox Christians included.

This occurred often around the early 20th Century among Black churches which were all jumping on the names like "Abyssinian", "Coptic", or "Apostolic" in connection with Protestant and Baptist type congregations who were under the influence of the rising tide of Ethiopianism.  Anything remotely linked to Africa was called Abyssinian, whereas there was little to zero actual connection with Abyssinia, the Coptic Orthodox Church whether in Ethiopia or Egypt, or even mutually with other so-called Abyssinian churches. To be sure, there were Coptic expatriates in America, but no Ethiopians until generally after the first Diaspora of the Italian Occupation 1935-1941..

It can indeed be very confusing, but we have a similar situation with Armenian "Apostolic" Churches here in the US, some are legit, others are renegade Orthodox, others still are heterodox churches, many confuse outsiders as to which is and isn't THE Armenian Church.  

What has always confused and bewildered me is the tendency for ALL kinds of Christians in the American experience, be it Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, or pseudo-any-of-these to simply branch of into schism and found new churches and parishes with feigned credentials of Apostolic legitimacy.  What is so tempting about America that folks lose their sense of actual tradition, historicity, and continuity that folks just feel the need to adamantly start their own parishes? The Apostles didn't function this way, neither did the Fathers (even those who were exiled or excommunicated), so why do Americans of all persuasions, across 300 odd years of history, share this rebellious nature towards self-asserting religious institutions? Is it the social influence of democracy? Is it the cultural impact of American exceptionalism/individualism?

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Michał Kalina]

This occurred often around the early 20th Century among Black churches which were all jumping on the names like "Abyssinian", "Coptic", or "Apostolic" in connection with Protestant and Baptist type congregations who were under the influence of the rising tide of Ethiopianism.  Anything remotely linked to Africa was called Abyssinian, whereas there was little to zero actual connection with Abyssinia, the Coptic Orthodox Church whether in Ethiopia or Egypt, or even mutually with other so-called Abyssinian churches.

For example, Rastafarianism.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

This occurred often around the early 20th Century among Black churches which were all jumping on the names like "Abyssinian", "Coptic", or "Apostolic" in connection with Protestant and Baptist type congregations who were under the influence of the rising tide of Ethiopianism.  Anything remotely linked to Africa was called Abyssinian, whereas there was little to zero actual connection with Abyssinia, the Coptic Orthodox Church whether in Ethiopia or Egypt, or even mutually with other so-called Abyssinian churches.

For example, Rastafarianism.

True, but (a) many Rastafari organizations are political, not institutional religions, in fact, even among the legitimately organized "mansions" you will scarcely find anything structural or institutional and (b) many in Rastafari inevitably join more legitimate institutions such as the Tewahedo, Coptic, and even Catholic Church. Those mansions based of the Ethiopian World Federation charter are NOT religious organizations, strictly speaking, they are structured as lobbyists and activists. Further, through the EWF and later the Tewahedo Mission in the Caribbean thousands of Rastafari folks did indeed have a DIRECT and TANGIBLE connection to both Ethiopians and also HIM Haile Selassie, so by all accounts are more legitimate than the so-called Abyssinian churches of the Black experience in the United States..  However, thanks for the ad hominem  

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Topic: Orthodox Catholic Church in America