The OCA

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Thu 4 December 2003 4:25 pm

Chysostomos,

I say this affectionately, I suppose we should all be prepared to "run to the hills" for our faith.

But there will always be a true confessing bishop and priest.

Nevski · Post by **Nevski** » Thu 4 December 2003 5:49 pm

OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:
Nevski,
But I know St. Nicholas's and St. Constantine and Helens in Oak Lawn, IL and Palos Hill, IL have done it. Long-short, yes, I think it is a free-for-all but certainly not a policy.

When, and what were the names of the priests? And did you contact the bishop? If not, why? If so, what did he say?

Having said that, I believe the OCA considers Monophysites to be members of the church and have a real priesthood, do you agree Nevski?

Can you show me any official OCA document or provide me with any other evidence indicating that this is the position of the OCA?

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Thu 4 December 2003 6:00 pm

When, and what were the names of the priests? And did you contact the bishop? If not, why? If so, what did he say?

Father Byron, Sts. Constantine and Helen (GOA), Summer of 1998. I didn't contact the bishop because "little Jake" is not bishop, but a lost man, and probably does this himself. Would you like me to have him sign an affidavit?

Can you please take that bright light out of my eyes now and stop saying in a German accent, "we have ways of making you talk".

Can you show me any official OCA document or provide me with any other evidence indicating that this is the position of the OCA?

I believe I asked you a question, it would be nice is you didn't answer with a question. But I figured that since the OCA recognizes the heretic Latin baptism to be exactly the same as the Orthodox baptism, they would at least admit that the Monophysites have a priesthood, a baptism, ect. Reasonable or no?

gbmtmas · Post by **gbmtmas** » Thu 4 December 2003 6:04 pm

Natasha wrote:
Sigh..sounds to me like you have a serious axe to grind. Sorry to tell you that some churches are not perfect, that is just life. No, I will not provide you names and dates. It is not my place to do such things. Instead of trying to open up an investigation, I just stopped going to those churches. Not only is it not my place to name names, but my family has serious ties to the church and I don't want to welcome scandal into everyones lives. Why is it so hard for you to accept that some parishes do not adhere to the "rules and regulations"?

Because it's based on hear-say. When no specifics or evidence are provided, then how am I not to think that the author of generalities and sweeping statements doesn't have "a serious axe to grind"?

This is typical, from what I've seen on various forums. The accusations against this-or-that jurisdiction flail, and when evidence is requested, then the accusation turns personal (i.e. "sounds to me like you have a serious axe to grind...").

Another point to remember is that if ROCOR enters into communion with the MP, then they will be in indirect communion with the OCA and Antioch.

gbmtmas

Natasha · Post by **Natasha** » Thu 4 December 2003 6:21 pm

exactly what did I say that falls into the category of "generalities and sweeping statements"?
this has just become ridiculous...all I can tell you is what I saw...I have no reason to lie-but I guess I can't prove that either huh?

Nevski · Post by **Nevski** » Thu 4 December 2003 6:22 pm

OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:
Father Byron, Sts. Constantine and Helen (GOA), Summer of 1998. I didn't contact the bishop because "little Jake" is not bishop, but a lost man, and probably does this himself. Would you like me to have him sign an affidavit?

Thank you. No, no affidavit necessary. But I do intend to e-mail Father Byron and ask him about this. I will post his response, if he provides one.

I believe I asked you a question, it would be nice is you didn't answer with a question. But I figured that since the OCA recognizes the heretic Latin baptism to be exactly the same as the Orthodox baptism, they would at least admit that the Monophysites have a priesthood, a baptism, ect. Reasonable or no?

You asked me if I agreed with the alleged OCA's position that Monophysites are members of the church and have a real priesthood. The question, however, presumes that this is indeed the OCA's position, something that I question based on what I believe to be the truth of the matter, so naturally I would ask you for evidence that this is the OCA's belief. Now you respond that you "figured" that to be the case on the basis of your (mistaken) notion that the "OCA recognizes Latin baptism." When such poor logic is appended to such dubious assumptions, I have to answer your last question by saying, no, none of what you've said thus far is "reasonable." So let's go back to square one: 1) What evidence have you that the OCA "recognizes Latin baptism?;" 2) What evidence have you that the OCA believes that "Monophysites are members of the church and have a real priesthood?"

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Thu 4 December 2003 6:42 pm

Nevski,

You said:

...your (mistaken) notion that the "OCA recognizes Latin baptism." When such poor logic is appended...

and

1) What evidence have you that the OCA "recognizes Latin baptism?;"

I would very much like to show you what it will take to convince you of the truth. I feel a person honest with his conscience, such as yourself, will give credible documentation a fair consideration.

So what is reasonable evidence for such a strong accusation of this ecclesiastical heresy within the OCA?