Daniel,
I could be mistaken but I believe the Synod headed by Archbishop Nicholas uses "GOC", although I think I've seen different "matthewite" groups use both.
What...
Moderator: Mark Templet
+Kiprianos
The Synod In Resistance is what the jurisdiction of +Metropolitan Kiprianos refers to itself as. I didn't see a spot for it. So I voted for "other Orthodox". I am now a ROCOR/Jordanville formed Kiprianite. Should make for a thoroughly fascinating life in Christ!
Orthodoxia I Thanatos!
R M Malleev-Pokrovsky
PS I think the issue of BAPTISM should really be addressed, especially when people are being received from sects which ONLY BELIEVE BAPTISM IS SYMBOLIC through oikonomia. To paraphrase Elder Ephraim, "Po, po, Kyrie Eleison!!!"
No Way To Change My Vote?
I guess there's no way to change my vote. You see, EVERYBODY calles themselves tocs, so does +Chrysostomos, so do the matthewites.
ORTHODOXIA I THANATOS!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky
-
mwoerl
which one are you?
ROCOR but wavering . . . and, no, i am not "looking for a new one . . ."
also like to clear something up . . .
Nicholas wrote:
"Actually OCA has churches with Russian in their name but they are not Russian. In fact they have things like Romanian Dioceses and Serbian Dioceses but not a Russian Diocese . . . "
The OCA was formerly (prior to being granted autocephaly from the MP) known as the "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America" as it was comprised primarily of parishes of the former Russian Diocese of North America, and was twice the North American Metroplia [Metropolitan District] of the ROCOR. When "the problem of multiple Russian jurisdictions after the Russian Revolution" is discussed, the North American Metropolia/OCA has always been considered as one of these "multiple Russian jurisdictions."
The OCA does not have a Serbian Diocese, but they do have a Bishop, Nicholas of Alaska, who is of Serbian descent. After the autocephaly granted by the MP, apparently the OCA made a a rather strong pitch to Serbs to sign on; I remember seeing a Serbian church newspaper from around that time that accused the OCA of trying to "steal" its flock. I seem to remember this was a newspaper of the Free Serbs, indpendent of the Serbian Patirarchate-possibly the OCA felt they would be more inclined to join them because of their separation from the Serbian Patriarchate due to the government of Yugoslavia being communist. Someone who was a student at St Vladimir's some time back, the OCA seminary, told me of a Serbian student there who referred to the OCA as "OCA, the killer jurisdiction [a word play on orca, the killer whale . . . ], trying to gobble up all the smaller jurisdictions . . . " My friend said the guy even made a poster with a killer whale labelled "OCA" gobbling up little fishies labelled for various smaller jusrisdictions, and put it up on his dorm room wall!
The OCA does have a Romanian Diocese, under Bishop Nathanael (Popp). Previously under Archbishop Valerian (Trifa), whose independent Romanian Diocese began when he was consecrated a Bishop by Ukrainian autocephalists; when the OCA finally took him in, they consecrated him a Bishop too, as no Orthodox Church would recognize a consecration performed by the Ukrainian autocpehalists. It is interesting to note that, while the OCA, in the past, has made much hay of the supposed "nazi connections" of ROCOR, that Archbishop Valerian (Trifa) is the only Orthodox Bishop ordered to be deported (he possibly left the US for Spain, I think, to avoid the actual deportation) from the US for "nazi connections"-that is, his activities with the Romanian "Iron Guard," a pro-nazi/nazi subisdized/nazi puppet group in Romania during World War II. This Diocese "competes" with the Romanian Orthodox Diocese in the USA under the Romanian Patriarchate, and has its origins with Romanians who did not want to be under the Patriarchate in Romania after Romania's subjugation to communism after WWII.
The OCA does have a Bulgarian Diocese, which began in 1976, when then Bishop Kyrill (Yonchev), who headed the Bulgarian Diocese within ROCOR, left ROCOR because his Diocese wished to adopt the new calendar, and joined the OCA. This Diocese, too, competes with a Bulgarian Diocese in the US under the Bulgarian Patriarchate, and also had its origins with those Bulgarians who did not want to be under a communist -controlled Patriarchate in Bulgaria.
While both the Romanian and Bulgarian Patirarchal Dioceses in the US "compete" with the OCA's Romanian and Bulgarian Diocese, the situation is further complicated-or clarified, i guess, depending on how you look at it-by the fact that -i think-both Patriarchates recognize the autocephaly of the OCA, as all the Orthodox Churches under Moscow-aligned communist governments did so. One would think that recognition of the OCA's autocephaly would compel a Church to surrender it sparishes in the US to the jurisdiction of the OCA, but-what do i know? Possibly the Romanians did not, or later changed their minds-i cant remember.
The OCA also has an Albanian Diocese, at one time under Bishop Stephen (Lasko). It consists of only a few parishes. There was some kind of disagreement among the Albanians in the US; most Albanian parishes are under the Ecuemnical Patriarchate. Bishop Stephen joined the OCA with his parishes, I think, in 1971. After Bishop Stephen died, the Albanian Diocese has been directly under the OCA Metropolitan, and no new Bishops have been consecrated for the Albanians.
At one time, the OCA had a Mexican Exarchate under Bishop Jose(Olmos). This had its origins in the Mexican Revolution, when the Roman Catholics were seen as being hand in hand with the "hated Spanish colonialists," and a Mexican National Catholic Church was created. In the 1960's, some of the clergy and laity of this Mexican National Catholic Church contacted Fr Dimitri Royster of the North American Metropolia (now Archbishop Dimitri of the OCA) inquiring about Orthodoxy. After consultations, reports, etc., the group was accepted by the OCA in 1972, when the Mexican Exarchate was formed. At that time, the Mexican Exarchate claimed 20,000 faithful, and their cathedral in Mexico City was slated for completion in 1976. After Bishop Jose died, another Bishop was not consecrated for the Mexican Exarchate; the parishes were administered by Archbishop Dimitri. I do not know if the Exarchate still exists. The OCA did publish quite a lot of missionary materials in Spanish for the Mexican Exarchate.
The OCA of course loudly and widely proclaims its "irreproachable canonicity" through the autcoephaly granted by the MP. While "ethnic dioceses" are not exactly what one would call a "canonical standard," the OCA seemingly felt at one time that the establishment of these ethnic dioceses would somehow illustrate and consolidate its "position" as the "American" Orthodox Church, able and willing to "care" for "ALL" the Orthodox in North America . . . and elsewhere, apparently, as the OCA at one time (still may, I don't know) had a parish in Peru, and a few in Australia, all the result of disgruntled ROCOR priests (probably more as a show against ROCOR than a show of support for the position of the OCA) "joining up."
Another interesting sidelight is that the precursor of the OCA, the North American Metropolia, was assigned by the US government to administer the Japanese Orthodox Church after WWII. The first ethnically Japanese Bishop, Nicholas (Yamaguchi-Ono), was consecrated by ROCOR in Harbin in 1942, and subsequently the Japanese Church was under ROCOR. After WWII, the majority voted to go back under the MP, but General MacArthur did not want the "commies" involved in Japan in any way whatsoever. So, the North American Metropolia was put in charge of the Japanese Church. As part of the agreement concerning the OCA's autocephaly, the Japanese Church was handed back to the MP with "autonomous" status by the OCA.
mwoerl