Topic: Looks like ROCOR will dismantle its WR

[88Devin12]

I just wished the ROCOR synod would tell their Priests to interact with other Orthodox. We have 8 parishes here, 7 somewhat regularly interact and help with local Orthodox charities and pan-Orthodox events. The ROCOR parish has (voluntarily) isolated itself and no one really even knows or sees the Priest. I've heard it's similar elsewhere too. I don't understand it.

[podkarpatska]

I just wished the ROCOR synod would tell their Priests to interact with other Orthodox. We have 8 parishes here, 7 somewhat regularly interact and help with local Orthodox charities and pan-Orthodox events. The ROCOR parish has (voluntarily) isolated itself and no one really even knows or sees the Priest. I've heard it's similar elsewhere too. I don't understand it.

Back in the day, I understood their self imposed isolation, now there is no excuse. I agree.

[Alpo]

I just wished the ROCOR synod would tell their Priests to interact with other Orthodox. We have 8 parishes here, 7 somewhat regularly interact and help with local Orthodox charities and pan-Orthodox events. The ROCOR parish has (voluntarily) isolated itself and no one really even knows or sees the Priest. I've heard it's similar elsewhere too. I don't understand it.

Back in the day, I understood their self imposed isolation, now there is no excuse. I agree.

I agree that there is no excuse but olds habits die hard. It is not necessary self-imposed isolation but just a bad habit.

[lubeltri]

I was concerned about this when I was considering becoming Orthodox 7-8 years ago. Glad now that I didn't go through with it.

[Justin Kissel]

I was concerned about this when I was considering becoming Orthodox 7-8 years ago. Glad now that I didn't go through with it.

I don't understand..? So it's not the obvious dogmatic differences or practices between Catholicism and Orthodoxy that concern/concerned you, but whether a particular flavor of worship would be around? 

[lubeltri]

I was concerned about this when I was considering becoming Orthodox 7-8 years ago. Glad now that I didn't go through with it.

I don't understand..? So it's not the obvious dogmatic differences or practices between Catholicism and Orthodoxy that concern/concerned you, but whether a particular flavor of worship would be around? 

Well, I never saw the dogmatic differences being nearly as great as most Orthodox see them. I suppose I would have been a nice, wishy-washy, Catholic-friendly EP-Bartholomew-style Orthodox. But I would have had a hard time keeping my deeply Latin-Western orientation as an Orthodox. That was my fear. And I didn't feel confident in the future of WRO. Even less so now.

[William]

I was concerned about this when I was considering becoming Orthodox 7-8 years ago. Glad now that I didn't go through with it.

I don't understand..? So it's not the obvious dogmatic differences or practices between Catholicism and Orthodoxy that concern/concerned you, but whether a particular flavor of worship would be around? 

Dogma is just something those old meanies on the internet worry about. Real Christians are more concerned about being able to pray slightly differently than everyone else in a parish with a maximum of nine other people. Lubeltri really dodged a bullet there.

[Peter J]

Hi. Latecomer chiming in.

I have to admit that I am shocked by this. I am not familiar with the charges leveled against Bishop Jerome but even if he did something wrong why should the entire Western Rite of ROCOR be dismantled? Very sad.

Thank you! Prior to finding this thread, I kept hearing from Orthodox who think it's no big deal.

(Meanwhile I've been trying to imagine, with my finite brain power, the field day that Orthodox posters would have if there were instead an announcement that a bunch of Greek Catholic churches were forced to become Latin.   )

[Orthodox11]

(Meanwhile I've been trying to imagine, with my finite brain power, the field day that Orthodox posters would have if there were instead an announcement that a bunch of Greek Catholic churches were forced to become Latin.   )

I'm sure, though the differences are vast. Setting up a tiny Western Rite mission to accommodate a particular kind of convert, realising it was (in their minds) a failed experiment, and shutting it down is very different from accepting large numbers of Orthodox Christians into Communion with the promise that they could continue to be as they were, and then going back on that promise.

[TheTrisagion]

I haven't been closely following this, but have they actually stated they are closing down WR?  I thought it was just a moratorium on new priests into the rite.

[Peter J]

(Meanwhile I've been trying to imagine, with my finite brain power, the field day that Orthodox posters would have if there were instead an announcement that a bunch of Greek Catholic churches were forced to become Latin.   )

I'm sure, though the differences are vast. Setting up a tiny Western Rite mission to accommodate a particular kind of convert, realising it was (in their minds) a failed experiment, and shutting it down is very different from accepting large numbers of Orthodox Christians into Communion with the promise that they could continue to be as they were, and then going back on that promise.

Oh, I don't deny the differences. I have never seen Western-Rite Orthodoxy engaging in uniatism/proselytism (which was a major factor in Greek Catholicism, until relatively recently). But that's not the point; the WRO in question became Orthodox under the understanding that they would be Western-Rite, and now the WR is being forcibly taken from them.

[Peter J]

I haven't been closely following this, but have they actually stated they are closing down WR?  I thought it was just a moratorium on new priests into the rite.

If only that were all that was said. Read further:

"8 ) To address an epistle to the clergymen and communities of the Western Rite regarding the need for them to adopt the order of divine services of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church, while preserving, when necessary, certain particularities of the Western Rite."

[The young fogey]

From what I understand, the ROCOR WR attempts to restore Western rite services as they were before 1054, while the Antiochian WR makes use of current, post-schism ("the living tradition") Western traditions that are compatible with Orthodoxy, amending them where needed.

Exactly.

The real issue here seems not to have been the character of ROCOR's Western Rite liturgics (vs. Antioch's, etc.) but that Bishop Jerome took a short cut to grow his vicariate: receiving and ordaining vagante ('independent Catholic') types quickly, without checking them out or teaching them. Nathan Monk was the last straw: a 28-year-old showoff priest wannabe who loudly quit everything after eight months.

(Sidebar: That's been going on as long as there have been vagantes. A Western wannabe priest travels east and finds a trusting Eastern bishop to ordain him, then he turns on his new bishop when he goes home by going independent.)

So yeah, ROCOR had to clean house; the Western Rite is only incidental.

The smartest thing for ROCOR to do right now, now that it's clearly in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy (since union with Russia), would be for it to release its former WR parishes to Antioch. Everybody would save face.

And if these ex-WRs are understandably disillusioned so they leave Orthodoxy to join a Western church or start their own, regarding the criticism that they would be idolizing their culture, actually they would be re-enacting the founding of ACROD.

[Marc1152]

Bishop Jerome served at our Parish Feast yesterday. I was wondering what all the buzz was about.

Let me just say that the Bishop was in good cheer. He delivered an excellent Homily and at the meal told interesting stories and was very affable. This is a good lesson on how a Christian should be like in times of personal adversity. He was steady and without any apparent negative emotion...  Good for him. Please include him in your prayers.

[Peter J]

From what I understand, the ROCOR WR attempts to restore Western rite services as they were before 1054, while the Antiochian WR makes use of current, post-schism ("the living tradition") Western traditions that are compatible with Orthodoxy, amending them where needed.

Exactly.

The real issue here seems not to have been the character of ROCOR's Western Rite liturgics (vs. Antioch's, etc.) but that Bishop Jerome took a short cut to grow his vicariate: receiving and ordaining vagante ('independent Catholic') types quickly, without checking them out or teaching them. Nathan Monk was the last straw: a 28-year-old showoff priest wannabe who loudly quit everything after eight months.

(Sidebar: That's been going on as long as there have been vagantes. A Western wannabe priest travels east and finds a trusting Eastern bishop to ordain him, then he turns on his new bishop when he goes home by going independent.)

So yeah, ROCOR had to clean house; the Western Rite is only incidental.

The smartest thing for ROCOR to do right now, now that it's clearly in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy (since union with Russia), would be for it to release its former WR parishes to Antioch. Everybody would save face.

And if these ex-WRs are understandably disillusioned so they leave Orthodoxy to join a Western church or start their own, regarding the criticism that they would be idolizing their culture, actually they would be re-enacting the founding of ACROD.

A fair comparison in some ways, but in some ways unfair. I don't want to analyze it to death, but I would point out that the pre-VCII actions of Latin bishops in America against Eastern Catholics was:
- on a much larger scale and
- entailed not only forcible change-of-rite but also the expelling of priests from America.

[ialmisry]

(Sidebar: That's been going on as long as there have been vagantes. A Western wannabe priest travels east and finds a trusting Eastern bishop to ordain him, then he turns on his new bishop when he goes home by going independent.)

Btw, just for the record, that is how your Ruthenian and Romanian "sui juris" churches (amongst others perhaps) got started.

So yeah, ROCOR had to clean house; the Western Rite is only incidental.

The smartest thing for ROCOR to do right now, now that it's clearly in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy (since union with Russia), would be for it to release its former WR parishes to Antioch. Everybody would save face.

Surprisingly, that is correct.

And if these ex-WRs are understandably disillusioned so they leave Orthodoxy to join a Western church or start their own, regarding the criticism that they would be idolizing their culture, actually they would be re-enacting the founding of ACROD.

Not quite.

[The young fogey]

Bishop Jerome served at our Parish Feast yesterday. I was wondering what all the buzz was about.

Let me just say that the Bishop was in good cheer. He delivered an excellent Homily and at the meal told interesting stories and was very affable. This is a good lesson on how a Christian should be like in times of personal adversity. He was steady and without any apparent negative emotion...  Good for him. Please include him in your prayers.

Good for him; I saw him once, and he seemed nice like you describe.

This isn't his personal scandal; no heresy, theft, or sexual sin. He just made a mistake trying to grow his church so all he can do is gracefully retire, which he seems to be doing.

[ialmisry]

Hi. Latecomer chiming in.

I have to admit that I am shocked by this. I am not familiar with the charges leveled against Bishop Jerome but even if he did something wrong why should the entire Western Rite of ROCOR be dismantled? Very sad.

Thank you! Prior to finding this thread, I kept hearing from Orthodox who think it's no big deal.

(Meanwhile I've been trying to imagine, with my finite brain power, the field day that Orthodox posters would have if there were instead an announcement that a bunch of Greek Catholic churches were forced to become Latin.   )

What field day?  That's old news.

[The young fogey]

(Sidebar: That's been going on as long as there have been vagantes. A Western wannabe priest travels east and finds a trusting Eastern bishop to ordain him, then he turns on his new bishop when he goes home by going independent.)

Btw, just for the record, that is how your Ruthenian and Romanian "sui juris" churches (amongst others perhaps) got started.

So yeah, ROCOR had to clean house; the Western Rite is only incidental.

The smartest thing for ROCOR to do right now, now that it's clearly in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy (since union with Russia), would be for it to release its former WR parishes to Antioch. Everybody would save face.

Surprisingly, that is correct.

And if these ex-WRs are understandably disillusioned so they leave Orthodoxy to join a Western church or start their own, regarding the criticism that they would be idolizing their culture, actually they would be re-enacting the founding of ACROD.

Not quite.

I forgot that about the Romanian Catholic Church, easy to do since it's rather small. I know the Ruthenians had a number of priests go under Rome in the 1646 union of Uzhorod (legend has it; there's no written act of union from that). If they tricked Orthodox bishops to get a bishop, I'm not too surprised. 'Wait, what's this? Churchmen have done sneaky things over the centuries? Stop the presses!' Not news. Leave the church because they're a bunch of hypocrites? Not so much.

Of course the Catholic Church and the 'Independent Inclusive Anglican Rite Old Catholic Orthodox Church' (some bishop wannabe, who maybe tricked an Eastern bishop into ordaining him, having services in his rec room with his family for a congregation) aren't equivalent really; only theoretically in the opinion of many Orthodox to whom everything outside the visible church is undifferentiated darkness.

[Peter J]

(Sidebar: That's been going on as long as there have been vagantes. A Western wannabe priest travels east and finds a trusting Eastern bishop to ordain him, then he turns on his new bishop when he goes home by going independent.)

Btw, just for the record, that is how your Ruthenian and Romanian "sui juris" churches (amongst others perhaps) got started.

I don't know about that (seems like it might be a bit of an oversimplification) but regardless, the Catholic Church has now admitted that the Union of Brest and the like were mistakes.

BTW, is it possible that we're inside a Lakehouse phenomenon, where I'm writing things in 2013 and you're reading them in 1913 (or some other year before Vatican II)?

[The young fogey]

(Sidebar: That's been going on as long as there have been vagantes. A Western wannabe priest travels east and finds a trusting Eastern bishop to ordain him, then he turns on his new bishop when he goes home by going independent.)

Btw, just for the record, that is how your Ruthenian and Romanian "sui juris" churches (amongst others perhaps) got started.

I don't know about that (seems like it might be a bit of an oversimplification) but regardless, the Catholic Church has now admitted that the Union of Brest and the like were mistakes.

BTW, is it possible that we're inside a Lakehouse phenomenon, where I'm writing things in 2013 and you're reading them in 1913 (or some other year before Vatican II)?

Has it? I'm not sure I'd claim that.

A recent development is an idea I've been promoting, that the church gives never-Catholic Orthodox the benefit of the doubt. So with the goal of corporate reunion, of the whole Orthodox Church joining the Catholic Church, such are not solicited. So operations (that failed) such as the French Assumptionists starting 'Greek Greek Catholic' churches in Greece 100 years ago, and Ruthenian Archbishop Nicholas Elko starting St Nicholas Greek Catholic Church in Anchorage, Alaska, to convert the Orthodox Tlingits, are out. And that's fine.

But such Orthodox approaching the Catholic Church on their own, as happened at Brest, were and are accepted, but now quietly. The true-church claim demands that acceptance of conversions. So in that sense, no, we can't say the Union of Brest was a mistake. Saying so is branch-theory, the popular notion that Vatican II dropped the true-church claim. It didn't because nothing can.

[age234]

I only heard about this happening at church yesterday. Surprising, I must say, although it has seemed like the whole thing was administrated badly and there was little liturgical cohesion among parishes.

I think the days of the Western Rite are numbered. Based on what I've heard from people I know in the WR community, Antioch is apparently becoming more strict also. (As I understand it, the position now is that the Eastern Rite is normative for Orthodoxy, and the Western Rite exists only as a pastoral concession for entire Anglican or Catholic parishes that want to join the Church—but the WR is not an end unto itself.) I think when Metropolitan Philip passes, that might be the end of it.

[Sleeper]

I only heard about this happening at church yesterday. Surprising, I must say, although it has seemed like the whole thing was administrated badly and there was little liturgical cohesion among parishes.

I think the days of the Western Rite are numbered. Based on what I've heard from people I know in the WR community, Antioch is apparently becoming more strict also. (As I understand it, the position now is that the Eastern Rite is normative for Orthodoxy, and the Western Rite exists only as a pastoral concession for entire Anglican or Catholic parishes that want to join the Church—but the WR is not an end unto itself.) I think when Metropolitan Philip passes, that might be the end of it.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "an end unto itself" but the approach towards the WR in Antioch has always been towards whole parishes coming in. It is the only way WR is allowed. So in that regards, yes, the WR will only exist if there are parishes in place to keep it going.

It is no secret that Met. PHILIP is a staunch champion of the Western Rite, but so are Bps BASIL and JOHN, as well as other prominent figures in the Antiochain Archdiocese, such as Fr. Michael Keiser who is in charge of evangelistic efforts. So the passing of His Eminence doesn't really pose a threat, in my mind.

This is a very stark contrast between Antioch and ROCOR, who have upwards of 66 priests ordained for less than 30 parishes/missions. One can't help but wonder if this is not also a cause of ROCOR's current predicament?

[The young fogey]

I only heard about this happening at church yesterday. Surprising, I must say, although it has seemed like the whole thing was administrated badly and there was little liturgical cohesion among parishes.

I think the days of the Western Rite are numbered. Based on what I've heard from people I know in the WR community, Antioch is apparently becoming more strict also. (As I understand it, the position now is that the Eastern Rite is normative for Orthodoxy, and the Western Rite exists only as a pastoral concession for entire Anglican or Catholic parishes that want to join the Church—but the WR is not an end unto itself.) I think when Metropolitan Philip passes, that might be the end of it.

The whole thing was administrated badly. Exactly.

There was a kind of cohesion in ROCOR WR besides Orthodoxy generally: anything but the recognizably Roman Catholic, old or new, so contrived rites either putatively pre-schism or pasted from non-Anglo-Catholic Anglicanism.

Is 'Byzantine is normative' the official position of Antioch? Antioch reneging on WR would be news.

Then again WR of any kind is so small that most Orthodox have never heard of it, just like most Catholics have never heard of Eastern Catholics.

ROCOR, who have upwards of 66 priests ordained for less than 30 parishes/missions. One can't help but wonder if this is not also a cause of ROCOR's current predicament?

My guess is that was exactly the problem. Bishop Jerome ordained lots of priests without vetting them (and more than were needed?). Hence Nathan Monk, the bomb that blew up ROCOR WR (even though Monk wasn't WR when he quit, but he was among those hastily ordained for WR).

[Peter J]

(Sidebar: That's been going on as long as there have been vagantes. A Western wannabe priest travels east and finds a trusting Eastern bishop to ordain him, then he turns on his new bishop when he goes home by going independent.)

Btw, just for the record, that is how your Ruthenian and Romanian "sui juris" churches (amongst others perhaps) got started.

I don't know about that (seems like it might be a bit of an oversimplification) but regardless, the Catholic Church has now admitted that the Union of Brest and the like were mistakes.

BTW, is it possible that we're inside a Lakehouse phenomenon, where I'm writing things in 2013 and you're reading them in 1913 (or some other year before Vatican II)?

Has it?

Well, if you accept the Balamand Statement, then Yes. Granted, the Catholic Church has never said "Balamand is an official document that all Catholics must accept."

I'm not sure I'd claim that.

A recent development is an idea I've been promoting, that the church gives never-Catholic Orthodox the benefit of the doubt. So with the goal of corporate reunion, of the whole Orthodox Church joining the Catholic Church, such are not solicited. So operations (that failed) such as the French Assumptionists starting 'Greek Greek Catholic' churches in Greece 100 years ago, and Ruthenian Archbishop Nicholas Elko starting St Nicholas Greek Catholic Church in Anchorage, Alaska, to convert the Orthodox Tlingits, are out. And that's fine.

But such Orthodox approaching the Catholic Church on their own, as happened at Brest, were and are accepted, but now quietly. The true-church claim demands that acceptance of conversions. So in that sense, no, we can't say the Union of Brest was a mistake. Saying so is branch-theory, the popular notion that Vatican II dropped the true-church claim. It didn't because nothing can.

I think you're reading far too much into it. Saying that the Union of Brest was a mistake does not mean branch-theory, or dropping the true-church claim, or closing the door against any Orthodox trying (of their own accord) to switch sides. Rather it means that no longer follow the old policy of "uniatism".

Cardinal Kasper hit on some of the nuances that tend to be lost on the blogosphere: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1341020?eng=y

[Orthodox11]

ROCOR, who have upwards of 66 priests ordained for less than 30 parishes/missions.

Wow, if the average size of each parish/mission is 10 people, then that's insane.

[Nephi]

little liturgical cohesion among parishes.

Why does this seem to be a common complaint? I don't necessarily see the problem with having liturgical diversity, even among WR parishes.

[The young fogey]

I think I follow you, Peter J. Better to work for corporate reunion than to set up new churches of converts to compete with the Orthodox. But again at Brest they approached Catholicism; Catholicism didn't start it. And yes, 'Balamand said' does not mean 'the Catholic Church teaches'.

Wow, if the average size of each parish/mission is 10 people, then that's insane.

Yes. Probably a case of 'lots of parishes looks good on paper'.

Why does this seem to be a common complaint? I don't necessarily see the problem with having liturgical diversity, even among WR parishes.

Right. The whole point of WR is to prove an Orthodox claim to universality (catholicity) just like Catholicism's. The diversity of WR practice (and ROCOR WR had a distinctive underlying character in common that was different from Antiochian WR) wasn't why ROCOR has suppressed its WR. Bishop Jerome sacrificed quality for growth and it backfired.

[ialmisry]

(Sidebar: That's been going on as long as there have been vagantes. A Western wannabe priest travels east and finds a trusting Eastern bishop to ordain him, then he turns on his new bishop when he goes home by going independent.)

Btw, just for the record, that is how your Ruthenian and Romanian "sui juris" churches (amongst others perhaps) got started.

I don't know about that (seems like it might be a bit of an oversimplification) but regardless, the Catholic Church has now admitted that the Union of Brest and the like were mistakes.

The Catholic Church denounced them as errors in 1441, 1448, 1451, 1459, 1458, 1597ff, etc.

The Vatican celebrated them in 1996, 2000 and other times:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19951112_iv-cent-union-brest_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20000720_unione-romania-roma_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19960418_union-uzhorod_en.html

BTW, is it possible that we're inside a Lakehouse phenomenon, where I'm writing things in 2013 and you're reading them in 1913 (or some other year before Vatican II)?

No, I'm reading them in 1441, 1448, 1451, 1459, 1458, 1596, 1597, 1700, and thereafter, all the way up to 2013, present day.

the Vatican's history does not go back to the Apostles, but it does predate Vatican II.

[ialmisry]

But such Orthodox approaching the Catholic Church on their own, as happened at Brest,

yeeeaaaah.  That nudging by Sigismund Vasa, like the nudging he was engaged at the time in Sweden, had nothing to do with that.

were and are accepted, but now quietly. The true-church claim demands that acceptance of conversions. So in that sense, no, we can't say the Union of Brest was a mistake. Saying so is branch-theory, the popular notion that Vatican II dropped the true-church claim. It didn't because nothing can.

Just Truth.

[Papist]

Very sad to see the Western Rite disappear from ROCOR. I really respected the attempt to make the Orthodox Church more than a Byzantine institution.

[The young fogey]

There's still the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate, which while not Catholic is not anti-Catholic and tries to do just what you say, make Orthodoxy more than Byzantine. It's pre-Vatican II minus the Pope (old-school Old Catholic) and its near-clone, '50s high Episcopal.

[Mor Ephrem]

I really respected the attempt to make the Orthodox Church more than a Byzantine institution.

It already is.  Some people just haven't read the memo. 

[ialmisry]

I really respected the attempt to make the Orthodox Church more than a Byzantine institution.

It already is.  Some people just haven't read the memo. 

Indeed.  The EO Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Antioch should be reviving our rites.

[The young fogey]

I really respected the attempt to make the Orthodox Church more than a Byzantine institution.

It already is.  Some people just haven't read the memo. 

I think the jury's still out in Orthodoxy on the non-Chalcedonians: heretics or misunderstood Orthodox? A conservative vs. liberal battle in Orthodoxy.

[Peter J]

I think I follow you, Peter J. Better to work for corporate reunion than to set up new churches of converts to compete with the Orthodox. But again at Brest they approached Catholicism; Catholicism didn't start it. And yes, 'Balamand said' does not mean 'the Catholic Church teaches'.

Well, I don't accept your version of the Union of Brest. (Not that I necessarily believe that everything Orthodox say about it is true either. But I believe the truth lies somewhere in between.)

Of course, I guess the important thing is that we not engage in proselytism now. We can't change the past.

[Orthodox11]

Yes. Probably a case of 'lots of parishes looks good on paper'.

Lots of parishes can make sense, particularly in the US where distances are so vast. But if most of these parishes have 10 people, having 2 priests for every parish is nuts. Most Byzantine-rite parishes with 2 priests have many more parishioners than the total number of all WR Orthodox.

[Sleeper]

Yes. Probably a case of 'lots of parishes looks good on paper'.

Lots of parishes can make sense, particularly in the US where distances are so vast. But if most of these parishes have 10 people, having 2 priests for every parish is nuts. Most Byzantine-rite parishes with 2 priests have many more parishioners than the total number of all WR Orthodox.

I'm not even certain if all the ordained priests are assigned to any particular parish, but I could be wrong. The mindset seems to be, "We'll ordain you, now go and start a parish."

I suppose there's nothing wrong with this, in theory, but I grow more and more thankful for Antioch's insistence that only whole, existing, stable parishes can come into the WR.

[Orthodox11]

According to Fr. Michael Wood, who recently left ROCOR's WRO to join a non-canonical Russian jurisdiction, his new Metropolitan, Daniel, "will consider applications" from ROCOR priests who might be affected by this in order for them to "remain Western rite". Let's hope none of them take the bait and go into schism.

[arimethea]

I'm not even certain if all the ordained priests are assigned to any particular parish, but I could be wrong. The mindset seems to be, "We'll ordain you, now go and start a parish."

This has been the ROCOR way for years. If no one else will ordain you, go to ROCOR, they will do it. It is why you end up with parishes made up of a priest and his family.

[Orest]

I'm not even certain if all the ordained priests are assigned to any particular parish, but I could be wrong. The mindset seems to be, "We'll ordain you, now go and start a parish."

This has been the ROCOR way for years. If no one else will ordain you, go to ROCOR, they will do it. It is why you end up with parishes made up of a priest and his family.

And what about education or re-education in an Orthodox seminary?  How many convert ROCOR priests were required to go to Jordanville to undertake a seminary degree before they were ordained?

[Justin Kissel]

And what about education or re-education in an Orthodox seminary?  How many convert ROCOR priests were required to go to Jordanville to undertake a seminary degree before they were ordained?

I guess they could take the 2 year correspondence course they offer, that seems fairly basic/solid. Not sure why anyone in a WR position would want to do the full 5 year thing though.

[Nephi]

I really respected the attempt to make the Orthodox Church more than a Byzantine institution.

It already is.  Some people just haven't read the memo. 

I think the jury's still out in Orthodoxy on the non-Chalcedonians: heretics or misunderstood Orthodox? A conservative vs. liberal battle in Orthodoxy.

While others might differ, the jury doesn't seem out in my Church.

[Mor Ephrem]

I really respected the attempt to make the Orthodox Church more than a Byzantine institution.

It already is.  Some people just haven't read the memo. 

I think the jury's still out in Orthodoxy on the non-Chalcedonians: heretics or misunderstood Orthodox? A conservative vs. liberal battle in Orthodoxy.

The intention behind my comment was not to subject the non-Chalcedonians (read: "true church" in fogeyspeak ) to the judgement of EO, RC, or anyone else.  It was simply to point out that no one "rite" can be identical with "the Church".  The majority of EO may use the Byzantine rite, just as the majority of RC's use the Roman rite, but "Orthodoxy" is not "Byzantine rite" anymore than "Catholicism" is "Roman rite".          

[ialmisry]

I really respected the attempt to make the Orthodox Church more than a Byzantine institution.

It already is.  Some people just haven't read the memo. 

I think the jury's still out in Orthodoxy on the non-Chalcedonians: heretics or misunderstood Orthodox? A conservative vs. liberal battle in Orthodoxy.

While others might differ, the jury doesn't seem out in my Church.

My Churches' verdicts are in: the non-Chalcedonians are guilty as charged with Orthodoxy.