Posted on 11/19/2005 12:37:40 AM PST by Queen Beruthiel
July, 2005 was a turning point for the Orthodox Christian Church in North America. It was the time when two independent self governing Orthodox Christian Church bodies in North America, the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America (OCA) and the Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christain Archdiocese of North America, met with the clergy and lay leaders of the parishes throughout the Americas. In a conciliar manner, hierarchy, clergy and laity reasoned together to make decisions for the good order of their respective bodies, so they could move forward to face the challenges of the 21st century. The OCA meeting took place in Toronto, Canada July 17-22, 2005 and the Antiochian meeting took place in Dearborn, Michigan July 24-31, 2005.
Both groups realize that they are at a crossroads and that bold thinking and actions are needed to meet the needs of the People of God. The theme of the OCA meeting was “Our Church and the Future” and the theme of the Antiochian meeting was “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind.” (Romans 12:2) These two themes interrelate as Father Thomas Hopko, Dean Emeritus of St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary, pointed out. We are transformed by trusting in God and through God all things are possible. If we are conformed to the world and seek prosperity, possessions, position, popularity and prestige for the Church we will have no future. All Orthodox jurisdictions must die in Christ so that they can be resurrected in Unity and the Church can witness to Christ and make disciples of the people who live in the Americas. This is the mission of the Church and it can be best accomplished in Unity.
Although both meetings were held separately there were common elements and themes that both assemblies must address in order to move ahead to meet the spiritual needs of the faithful. One priority was Orthodox Christian Unity in North America and another was Evangelization. His Beatitude Herman, Archbishop of New York and Washington and Metropolitan of All America and Canada, addressed the topic of Unity in an eloquent and direct address to all delegates, observers and visitors in his banquet remarks. Metropolitan Philip, Primate of the Antiochian Archdiocese, devoted his keynote address to the topic of unity. Both leaders see Unity as necessary and part of the good order of the Church in the Americas. OCL will post the text of both speeches on its web site www.ocl.org when they are made available.
The faithful clergy and laity of both assemblies are ready to work together in Unity to do the work of the Church which is to keep the faith as it has been handed to us at this time and place by the apostles and church fathers and to share the faith with all those who seek to become Orthodox Christians. The clergy and laity of both bodies share this commitment to Orthodox administrative Unity. They are willing to give up what needs to be given up to accomplish this task. The delegates to the Antiochian Archdiocese meeting voted a strong resolution directed at SCOBA to move ahead to make Unity a reality. The full text is printed for your consideration.
A highlight of the OCA meeting was the panel discussion on Orthodox Relations which featured a video presentation by His Grace Bishop Basil of Wichita of the Antiochian Archdiocese. He called for the re-establishment of a bilateral commission between the OCA and the Antiochian Archdiocese on topics of mutual concern. He received an extended standing ovation. People applauded this concrete proposal.
Other concrete options that the clergy and laity suggested in informal gatherings related to Unity included:
Asking the two primates Metropolitans Herman and Philip to appoint two bishops from their archdioceses to meet together to discuss how the two archdioceses can work together to address mutual concerns.
Setting up a meeting between Metropolitan Philip and Metropolitan Herman so that they can sit down together and talk directly about their mutual interest in jurisdictional Unity as part of the good order of the church. Father Leonid Kishkovsky stressed the importance of direct contact Metropolitan to Metropolitan in External Affairs and many saw the wisdom of these interactions and wondered why there is such little eye to eye contact between the hierarchies in the Americas. A meeting with Metropolitan Herman and Metropolitan Philip would be a very meaningful concrete first step to jump start the movement toward administrative Unity.
Establishing a new organization of all the canonical heads of jurisdictions to replace SCOBA. Those left out of the SCOBA meetings would be able to participate.
There is a consensus among the faithful People of God in both jurisdictions that the OCA and Antiochians share enough mutual interests that they should move ahead. They cannot wait for all jurisdictions to join together at the same time. Some jurisdictions are not ready. Move ahead with those who are ready and in time the others will follow because they will have no choice. Most of the faithful believe that the OCA must take the leadership role in moving ahead on Unity because they are the local Church in the Americas by the fact of their Autocephaly.
The second common element of both meetings is the commitment of both assemblies to Evangelization. For hundreds of years Orthodox Christians couldn’t even talk about their faith for fear of having their tongues cut out or face other reprisals. The Church and its people were in captivity in Moslem or Communist lands. But today in America they are free to speak and write about the ancient apostolic Orthodox Christian faith. In America people are looking for the ancient faith and they are finding and choosing to become Orthodox Christians. They are flocking to both of these bodies through their well developed programs in Evangelization. So much more could be accomplished if they did this work of the Great Commission together! Here is the perfect bilateral program to further develop.
Two other highlights that I observed worth noting are that the Council Study Papers sent to the delegates and observers of the OCA meeting were excellent and applicable to all Orthodox jurisdictions not only the OCA. The lectures and panel discussions and the process involving all the participants to solicit their input on each priority were well organized and involved everyone. All the steps were designed to get input and create the vision for the OCA for the next ten years.
The outstanding Antiochian Camp and Youth and Young Adult Programs were presented by gifted and spirited young people. As faithful stewards we must guide our youth so that they can pass down Orthodoxy to the next generation. As a United Orthodox Christian Church in North America all our youth could have opportunities to participate in the excellent programs. There would be no jurisdictional barriers. The youth are ahead of us and inter-Orthodox programs such as OCMC, IOCC and OCF have broken down jurisdictional barriers. Both conventions were well attended by youth and they participated in all aspects of the meetings.
The holy services of daily Divine Liturgies and Vespers were holy occasions for the participants to reflect upon the work that they were doing each day. The Holy Spirit was truly guiding these two proceedings involving collectively over 3500 Church leaders. The people of God are ready to work toward building a United Orthodox Christian Church in North America. We call on the hierarchy to lead!
*** Observations submitted by George Matsoukas, Executive Director of Orthodox Christian Laity, an independent movement of Church Faithful dedicated to the formation of a United and Self Governed Orthodox Church in North America.
As I understand it, the sort of "main" Orthodox Churches in America are growing, the GOA, ROCOR, AOA and maybe OCA, but I'm not real sure about the last one. Of course "growing" is a relative thing...growing since when and from what. The growth, by the way, is mostly from converts and convert families.
Well each one you talk to will probably tell you it's the only caniocal one.
From what I've seen ROCOR is he most strict Orthodox (They don't even have seats in church, and mandate women covering their heads if they are married, and everyone has confession before the eucharist, etc).
The OCA is a lot more laid back, probably most similar to your experience in a Catholic church.
The Antiochian is probably the most liberal and evangelical.
The OCA is probably your best bet at finding a not ethnic-tied parish.
Also it depends where you live... you may not have an abundance of choices.
None have anything that could really be called heretical, most of the reason for a lack of union has to do with what country each came from, and heriarchial disputes following the 1917 revolution.
Looks like OCA is treading water (probably losing some to other Orthodox churches really)
http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=44&SID=3
"I think there may be a place for a 'less specifically ethnic' parish but personally I prefer a strong Russian ethnic parish."
My experience is that in this day and age, a good mix, 50/50, 60/40 with a strong ethnic culture in the parish works best for the overwhelming number of people.
If it were all up to me and about me, I'd want 100% Greek and not hear a word of English from the time I walked into the church until I left, but, alas, it isn't all about me and in any case, it would prbably mean the end of most parishes within a generation or two. I can tell you, I remember the days, not so long ago, when we treated our endowment like a golden calf because we all "knew" that we were dying off and there would be no new wave a Greek immigrants to carry on paying the bills one day. It was a "would the last Greek to die please shut the lights off" kind of mentality. That has all turned around in the last 12 years or so. At lat count we had 12 different ethnicities in the parish and the Metropolitan says when he visits that he sees the face of the bright future of Orthodoxy in America in our parish.
But I know what you mean! :)
Well, to give an example of what I mean by "heretical": In one place where we used to live, there was an "Orthodox" church complete with robed and bearded priests, icons, Divine Liturgy, you name it. Yet upon further inquiry we discovered that it was, in fact, a "gay" church, with an all-homosexual priesthood, dedicated to advancing "inclusion" of homosexuality. This experience has made us very, very wary.
QB:
Check out the websites of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, the Antiochian Archdiocese, the Orthodox Church in America and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. Each will give you a list of parishes in your state or area. Anyone of them ought to be fine...in other words, no homosexual cult organizations. Each parish will have different strengths and weaknesses, be more or less welcoming, more or less strict in praxis.
I mentioned only the larger jurisdictions because the smaller ones, the Serbian Church, the Bugarian Church, the Romanian Church all tend to be quite ethnic, but that too has its advantages. Stay away from HOCNA and any parish which you find has any type of close association with an Ephraimite monastery.
Thanks very much for your helpful response.
"As you can tell, I am a longtime FR lurker but a first time poster. My husband and I have been planning to convert to the Orthodox Christian Faith from Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism, respectively, but so far we have not contacted any particular church."
Welcome to posting!
As you might be able to tell from my post, I'm not Orthodox, I go to an eastern Catholic church. Something you might not be aware of is that the Catholic church actually consists of 23+/- churches, the largest being the western or Roman Catholic church. The much smaller eastern Catholic churches (the other 22) don't get much attention, but we're in communion with Rome. The big difference between the eastern churches and the western (Roman Catholic) church is that our liturgies and traditions are eastern, that is to say much more similar to those of the Orthodox churches than that of the Roman Catholic church.
Every now and then you'll see Catholic posters (myself included) talking about "heading east" or "going Canon 32-2." What we're talking about is switching from the western church to one of the eastern ones. A trend that seems to be getting more popular with time.
That's all a long of suggesting that you take a look at one of the eastern Catholic churches in your area. FReep mail me if you want more info, and I'll get you some links.
As for the "best" Orthodox church, I'm clearly not qualified to judge. But you're in good company, and we have some fine Orthodox posters on this thread who will be happy to help.
I will say that I absolutely love the eastern liturgies, and going east whether it be to an eastern Catholic church or becoming Orthodox is something well worth looking into. My only regret is that I didn't head east long ago.
Thanks for your kind offer of assistance. I actually have heard of the eastern rite Catholic Churches and I have great respect for them, as well as for the RC church. However, my husband and I have already made a firm decision in favor of the OC, though we have not yet converted. I do appreciate your generosity. One thing I have always liked about the religion threads on FR is that the Orthodox and Catholic posters (and many Protestants, to be fair) by and large treat each other with graciousness and fair-mindedness.
And not other Orthodox Church in the world recognizes it.
Where was this?
Serbian churches never have seats unless the churches are bought with pews installed, and then only in America! A couple of weeks ago I would have said that the Serbian Orthodox Curch (which is in communion with ROCOR) is just as traditional, but I would have to bite my tongue. After being away fro 2 years without any close encounters with the Serbian Church is America I was shocked to see some real perversions in one of its parishes in Florida.
For one, there is a large influx of Serbian redneck population that came with the tide of refugees from former Yugoslavia. Let me tell you: these people, the "children of communism," are not Orthodox. They insist on having a lamb for their Slava (Patron Saint) during the fasting period because, as one said "my grandfather did it that way!"
There is no reverence to the icons or even to the Precious Gifts. The priest who comes to serve on Saturdays vs Sundays never performs confessions. Yet parishioners take the Eucharist anyway! Some say they fasted for a week and that somehow makes up for the confession; to me it sounds like they are just making up their own rules, or actually what the post Vatican II Catholics do in America: eat meat on Fridays if you do charitable work instead of fasting but most just eat meat on Fridays.
Women are never covered, even when they receive the Eucharist, and that includes even the priest's wife! The incensing of the Precious Gifts is done incorrectly -- the incenser has his back turned to the Precious Gifts, and is leading the procession! This happened while a bishop was visiting! I also noticed that there is no reverence paid to the icons when people walk into the church. People talk during the Divine Liturgy and the priest's son (looks like 4 or 5 years old), is constantly walking in and out and slamming doors during the Divine Liturgy. I am getting ready to write to the Patriarchate in Belgrade and ask that something be done about this!
So, to make a blanket statement that this archdiocese or that archdiocese is good across all parishes is simply misleading and wrong. I have seen some really weird stuff in a Greek church in St. Augustine, Florida, and in Fort Myers, Florida. Yet I have seen incredible Orthodoxy in Japan and in one OCA parish in Florida, the only one I ever visited.
So, rather than make blanket statements, let's just say that no two parishes are alike. Just as neighborhoods all look nice from an airplane, some are better than others when you are on the ground.
Most of all, remember that the Church is for the sinners. Thus, no parish is free from error and corruption. But, overall, Orthodoxy remains pure and unaltered, although there may be flakes and all sides. Also remember that a good Church is not necessarily the biggest. Our Lord said that the true Church will become invisible. That certainly seems to be the trend, and it's not such a bad thing. :-)
It may take some time before you find a true Orthodox parish and you will know one when you see one. Trust me.
Recognizes what?
The claimed autocephally of the OCA.
In Honolulu: http://www.inclusiveorthodox.org/index.htm (We have moved since then.)
I suppose the "inclusive" should have tipped us off, but we knew practically nothing about Orthodoxy at the time. We thought that "inclusive" merely meant "not ultra-Russian, ultra-Greek, etc." Don't get me wrong, we are more than willing to respect and accomodate ourselves to the ethnic background of the church we will attend (the one in our town is Greek). However, ashamed though I am to admit it, we found the prospect of attending a church where nearly 100% of the parishioners are, say, of Russian descent, rather daunting. When we were still members of a particular Anglican church, there was *one* black family in the entire congregation. Now we know how they felt.
Normally we go to an OCA parish (though we're looking t moving to a ROCOR on.
Nearly 100% are Russian or Ukranian decendants but not nearly that many keep such traditions, most cannot even speak Russian (some in the choir can sing slavonic songs they've heard for years but have not idea outside those songs how to speak Russian)
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR_and_OCA
To this day, only the Churches of Russia, Bulgaria, Poland, Georgia, and the Czech Lands and Slovakia recognize the autocephaly of the OCA.
http://orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/EardwineUnity.php
Considering the crisis the East Europe churches experienced in 1917 I'd say it's their call on the autocephally OCA.
The only ones with a legitimate qualm is ROCOR which itself is returning to communion with the MP, and them only because of the properties lost when the OCA was granted autocephally.
The rest are mostly playing a game of holier than thou.
"Considering the crisis the East Europe churches experienced in 1917 I'd say it's their call on the autocephally OCA."
That's not the way it works. But then again, autocephally is rarely granted; its usually taken and then the other Churches come around eventually.
"The only ones with a legitimate qualm is ROCOR which itself is returning to communion with the MP, and them only because of the properties lost when the OCA was granted autocephally."
I understood that it was the parishes of the "Metropolia" which became OCA. ROCOR, as I understood it, had absolutely nothing to do with it, being in schism with Moscow at the time of the autocephally grant.
"The rest are mostly playing a game of holier than thou."
More like old cold war politics. It makes little difference day to day anyway.
Read the orthodoxwiki article. Both claimed to be the official church both claimed Russia had given them permission, and that they were officially the real church. There was legal dispute over properties, which was a problem ROCOR had everywhere especially after 1991 when the status of teh MP church was globally recognized again and countries started giving ROCOR proprties back to Moscow (a big reason for their warming up of relations with Moscow being they stood to lose access to what had been ROCOR churches and historic places for almost a hundered years.
ROCOR and the OCA both claimed to be separate from Moscow in 1917, and both were part of the Moscow church prior to that, one being the church which came to America through the purchase of Alaska, and the other being the missionary church.
Here's the OCA official version:
http://www.oca.org/MVhistoryintroOCA.asp?SID=1
Here's the ROCOR official version:
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/english/pages/history/briefhistory.html
The orthodox wiki article seems the least biased.
Until 1991 there was at least a good reason to be wary of the MP and thus the 1970 communion with the OCA; the large presence of the KGB hand in the Moscow church (most of whom haven't exactly left btw).
At this point however the Russian FSB (The KGB no longer exists) has shown less enthusiasm with church operations it had, though I wouldn't say the Moscow church operates completely outside of politics either.
That said the OCA churches are nothing like Russian churches. I've been to church in Russia and ROCOR churches are darned near identical (though smaller in design at least the ones I've seen). It makes sense for the ROCOR to be in communion with the MP.
Also
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/01newstucture/pagesen/news05/fifthcomm.html
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/01newstucture/pagesen/news05/mpbeslan.html
Most of the posts I've seen online regarding the OCA and ROCOR try to make them seem 'unofficial' churches, always with the goal of proping up something they are doing.
Considering that the schism in 1054 was mostly do to the bishop of Rome trying to institute a policy that the Roman Bishop and Rome itself were more official than other churches it seems ridiculous to me that any churches would attack another on that basis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.