A Dumb Question

[Gregory2]

This is not a dumb question at all. I actually wish people would discuss it more.

I'm an American Orthodox Christian of half-Greek extraction, but I grew up in the USA (in Pennsylvania, actually) and am interested in Orthodox history in North America. In my long reading on the subject of American Orthodoxy, I really think you can make a "case" any way you want to. Honestly, though, I don't see how anyone interested in the future or in the health of Orthodoxy in America can want to perpetuate rumors, lies, and "church intrigue" -- this isn't beneficial for anyone, no matter what "side" you're on.

ROCOR, etc. has produced many great luminaries in America in the 20th century -- St. John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francisco the Wonderworker and Fr. Seraphim Rose are but a few. Remember, though, that St. John Maximovitch was taken to court by his own fellow bishops! The ROCOR cathedral in San Francisco (though I've never been there) is a great testimony to Orthodoxy in North America, also.

While ROCOR may have had some legitimate concerns about Orthodox issues in the early 20th century (eg: the adoption of the Western calendar, involvement in ecumenical activities, etc.), the way it dealt with them in my opinion is wrong. Instead of calling for (and waiting for) a church council of all Orthodox bishops, it more or less unilaterally "excommunicated" its sister Orthodox churches until it was the only "true church" left (save for the Jerusalem Patriarchate and the Serbian Church). IMHO, this is not the way to deal with problems, and ROCOR claims that all other Orthodox churches are illegitimate are marginal at best. (I'm sure you're aware of the claims of other churches, like ROAC, Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece, etc. who do the same thing in 2004. Instead of convening church councils of their brother bishops to resolve problems, they break themselves away and claim everyone else schismatic.)

The Orthodox Church in America has always seen itself as the continuation of the first Alaskan Mission in 1794 and the missionary church to North America. The seat of our Bishop in San Francisco (His Grace TIKHON) is the same cathedral that Saint Tikhon worshipped in 100 years ago. Retired Metropolitan THEODOSIUS stated at his retirement speech in 2002 that Orthodox in this country, even those of us of Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc. extraction, are culturally North American if we've lived here a long time (I agree with this). Autocephaly is the ONLY choice for us, since North American culture is different than Russian or Greek (etc.) culture, and the North American church must respond to our unique cultural influences. (I entirely agree with this also.)

For those who argue that autocephaly was done "mischievously" for lack of a better word, I don't agree with this at all. It would not have been more beneficial for ANY party for the North American church to remain under the Patriarchate of Moscow and its communist influence, and complete autocephaly for the North American church allowed its focus to be missionary work in the USA. (If you do not know, the number of new parishes the OCA has opened since 1970 is astounding.) And autocephaly did not diminish the prayers Orthodox Americans offered for those suffering under the Communist yoke -- Fr. Alexander Schmemann (an early leader of the OCA and much maligned in certain circles) regularly broadcasted "Radio Liberty" in Russian to the suffering Christians of Russia weekly up to his death, giving them hope, not to mention the prayers of countless Orthodox Americans......

Where does this leave us? I think a major lesson is to beware of judging people -- judgment is left for God alone. Relations are warming, I think, between OCA and ROCOR, but a full "reunification" will take a lot of time (must address property issues, etc.). There's a ROCOR monastery near my parish, and my priest will allow us to commune there if we want to.

Concerning your other question, I think our involvement in ecumenical circles like the WCC is probably mostly improper, especially since many of the other churches have no interest in traditional Christianity.

Remember that these are only my opinions, stated in an open Orthodox forum.

[Daniel]

Are my words too strong?

No way are they too strong. I don't think there are words strong enough in English to describe how evil the WCC/NCC are.

[brendan]

Are my words too strong?

No way are they too strong. I don't think there are words strong enough in English to describe how evil the WCC/NCC are.

Ever checked out their youth forum message board? If that's the future of Christianity, the world is in trouble. In the short time I perused the messgages, I saw radical feminism, pro-sodomite, posts galore. The Scriptures? They don't appear to have much regard for them. I couldn't take much of it. I moved on in disgust.

-

[Joe Zollars]

The day the ROCOR communes with the MP is the day the ROCOR joins the WCC and falls under its own anathema.

Actually, I believe they fell victim to their own anathama with the union with the Kyprianite heretics under Metropolitan Vitaly. not to mention when they went into communion with the Serbians and the JP.

Nicholas Zollars

[bogoliubtsy]

The day the ROCOR communes with the MP is the day the ROCOR joins the WCC and falls under its own anathema.

Actually, I believe they fell victim to their own anathama with the union with the Kyprianite heretics under Metropolitan Vitaly. not to mention when they went into communion with the Serbians and the JP.

Nicholas Zollars

Well I guess Valentine was a "heretic" during that time as well.

[mwoerl]

first of all, any projected "re-union" (and, for all those who wanna go off about 'what do you mean a projected reunion, its already done, bla bla bla' and on and on ad nauseaum . . . -thats the same thing you all said about the clergy conference and sobor-that the 're-union' would be pronounced there-but, gee, it wasn't-so, save time and space and energy, and go off when it actually does happen, ok?) involves the MP and ROCOR, not the OCA. while a re-union with the MP and ROCOR would undoubtedly involve somewhat "warmer" relations between the OCA and ROCOR, they would still not be "in union" administratively at all.

i doubt that, on the surface, ROCOR will become "less traditional" because of a reunion with the MP and relations with the OCA. i also doubt that the OCA will become all that much "more traditional," unless, of course, they see some conrete benefit -such as attracting more people through "traditionalism" than they are attracting through their current melange of practices.

as far as the OCA's autocephaly-it is not recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Jerusalem Patriarchate, the Antiochian Patriarchate, the Alexandrian Patriarchate, the Church of Serbia, the Church of Romania, and, undoubtedly others. OCA 'apologists' can do the 'de facto de jure' thing yet again, and say, "oh, but they serve with us"-that does not mean they recognize the autocephaly in any way, shape or form. if they truly recognized it, these jurisdictions would not exist in North America, and they would instruct their parishes and dioceses here to join the "autocephalous American Church." period. the only Churches that supposedly recognize the autocephaly are those who were located in countries under Soviet hegemony-that is, those Churches that the Soviet Union could indeed "order" to recognize it. this would include Bulgaria and Romania, of course-but both those Churches still have diocesan administrations here. while the Churches of Czechoslovkia and Poland recognize the autocephaly, they of course do not have any presence in north America, and are thus "losing" nothing by their recognition of the autocephaly. So, before everybody gets ready to join the big happy multi-ethnic American Orthodox family, perhaps you had better wait until this "autocephaly" is actually recognized by any Churches whose recognition would be meaningfulin some way or another.

The MP's "recognition" of the autocephaly that they themselves granted even seems somewhat conditional! agreements were made on the number of parishes the MP could have in North America-these agreements were not kept, and the MP has "went over" the number. The MP is still opening parishes here-also in "violation" of the agreement. Also, in the past year or so, some kind of conference was held between the MP and the OCA, with the MP insisting on its right to open parishes here to "take care of russian immigrants to north america," which seemingly indicates that the MP, also, is not quite willing to hand over everything lock, stock and barrel to the "American Church." there has also been much made of an agreement with ROCOR that would leave ROCOR autonomous, and presiding over everything "outside of russia"-which would include the "russian immigrants in north america." neither eventuality would make the OCA jump for joy, i would think.

much of the Metropolia/OCA's history involves its thirsting after recognition as a body "to be reckoned with." i have always believed that this thirst for recognition has had quite a lot to do with the OCA's involvement with the ecumenical movement. i do not foresee the OCA terminating that involvement in the near future-it is quite important to them on many levels. during the years after wwii, after the Metropolia withdrew from the ROCOR, it had a very irregular status-sort of "on its own," but that status had not been approved by any of the Orthodox Churches. the fact that the Metropolia/OCA always "played nice" in the ecumenical movement afforded it some of the limited recognition that it did receive.

someone (i forget who) mentioned that "the OCA has always seen itself as the continuation of the original russian mission in alaska." uh-if i see myself as the rightful tsar of russia-that dont mean i am, now do it? historical circumstances do not back up this fanciful self image, however. an article in Orthodox Tradition some years back stated that the current OCA derives from 1946, and is made up overwhelmingly of the descendants of uniates who "re-converted" to orthodoxy. also interesting was an article about Bishop Nikolai (Ziorov) of Alaska in an issue of Orthodox Life some time back - the statements Bishop Nikolai made when he was Bishop of Alaska (1890's, i think) sounded like something directly from the ROCOR at its height of traditionalism-statements that would be absolutely abhorrent to current OCA thought! yet, the OCA considers Bishop Nikolai "one of their own." i sincerely doubt that Bishop Nikolai would return the favor-the current OCA would not be much to his liking-this was quite evident from his statements while Bishop of Alaska. also, i thought the OCA "cathedral" in S.F. was a sort of house church-are you sure this is the one in use 100 years ago? even if it is, it proves little. many knowledgable in the history of Orthdoxy in North America have disagreed with the OCA's "historical self-image."

while, yes indeed, people MAY have to "play nice" in the event of an MP-ROCOR 're-union,' there is also the possibility that the OCA will not be particularly happy with the way that 're-union' might pan out, and the antagonism and unhappiness with each other could continue. i wouldnt look for any ROCOR clergy to turn up to serve at New Skete after the "re-union"!! and, quite a few clergy of the OCA have a decidedly negative opinion of traditional practices, whether adhered to by ROCOR, ROAC, ROCiE, or the MP! they actually DIG the modernism, minimalism, and ecumenism-they feel that is how it HAS to be in an "American Church." whatever you think, its more than that, more than that . . .

mwoerl

[mwoerl]

Nicholas Zollars wqrote:

"Actually, I believe they fell victim to their own anathama with the union with the Kyprianite heretics under Metropolitan Vitaly. not to mention when they went into communion with the Serbians and the JP. "

OOD wrote:

"The day the ROCOR communes with the MP is the day the ROCOR joins the WCC and falls under its own anathema."

So-when is it already?

and, OOD-how does that work? communing with the MP is requirement for a membership card in the WCC? Bulgaria and Georgia both dropped out of the WCC, but they both commune with the MP . . . or will the MP force ROCOR to join the WCC? or? or? or what?

mwoerl