the main "disagreements" that traditional orthodox have with the OCA can be summed up quite briefly-because of the OCA's extreme modernism, minimalism, its involvement in ecumenism, as well as historical questions.
during the many years that "traditional orthodoxy," especially in the usa, basically meant ROCOR, there were quite rough times in the relations between ROCOR and the OCA/Metropolia (predecessor of the OCA). polemical "wars" went on, and the OCA, in the writings and pronouncements of some of its "leading lights" pronounced that ROCOR was "schismatic," mainly composed of "saber rattling tsar worshippers," "stuck in 19th century russia," "orthodox fundamentalists," etc etc etc. they also did the cutesy "so-called" thing quite a lot-referring to ROCOR as "the so-called 'Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia,' and referred to Metropolitan Philaret as "the would-be ruling Metropolitan . . . "
the Metroplia/OCA, after other traditional orthodox groups became established in the USA, were never -uh- "friendly" towards any of them.
interestingly enough, one of the OCA's main polemical publications against ROCOR, entitled "Synod," was published "anonymously"-no author, publisher, date, or place of publication was included. this wonderful example of hate literature repeated the old "ROCOR collaborated with the nazis" stuff, and included many very hazy allegations, as well as outright lies (that ROCOR initiated the "Croatian Orthodox Church" during WWII, among others.)
also, the OCA's autocephaly, negotiatied with the MP when the MP was undoubtedly completely under the control of the Soviet government-was not something that induced amusement in ROCOR; that this autocephaly was granted with the permission and "blessing" of the Soviet government is taken for granted.
then, of course, there is New Skete-an OCA monastery recieved from the Uniates that continues, with OCA permission, to engage in highly questionable practices . . .
also, there is the historical question. ROCOR maintains that the Metropolia (OCA's predecessor) was an integral part of ROCOR from 1921-1927, then again from 1935-1946. the OCA claims (despite overwhelning evidence to the contrary-such as requests from Metroplitan Theophilus to the ROCOR Synod in Serbia asking permission for the Metropolia to consecrate Bishops, or elevate Bishops to Archbishop, and the report of Bishop Alexei (Panteleeff) to the Metropolia on the gloriofication of St Herman of Alaska, with his insistence that the matter be turned over to the ROCOR Synod in Serbia . . . ) that they were NEVER part of ROCOR. also, the OCA's claims to be the "successor" of the first russian missions to alaska are somewhat historically shaky . . .
also, there were the relations between Metroplitan Platon and the Episcopalians-who virtually bankrolled the Metropolia in the 1920's-when Met Platon attempted to launch an "American Orthodox Church" in 1927, the Episcopalians, who saw themselves as "the American Orthodox Church" (branch theory and all . . .), threatened to revoke funding. Met Platon dropped his "American Orthodox Church" like the proverbial hot potato . . . this creation of Met Platon and the Metropolia went on, on its own, to wreak havoc on Orthodoxy in North America-every off-the-wall vagante "Orthodox" jurisdiction now in existence claims "apostolic succession" from Met Platon's "American Orthodox Church," and the Bishop ordained for it by Met Platon, Aftimios Ofiesh (who "resigned" his episcopate to marry).
ah, this could be the subject of a quite weighty tome . . .
mwoerl
?