www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Don't Understand

Greetings all,

Once again, I return after a long absence. I always find it rather humorous; the direction life takes one. After being away for a while, its funny how one discovers new things about old friends.

I am still continuing attaining my Religious Studies degree and I have immersed myself in all things Christian.

I feel I have become more ecumenical in spirit, though still steadfast to my realist views that corporate unity for any one of our venerable denominations is far off.

I worship in the Roman Catholic Church and now, also, the United Church of Christ. I accompany my long-time friend on his quest to become a Christian. And he has found his home in that church.

Anyway, thats just a little brief recap on my life for any of you interested.

Today, my question relates to Eastern Orthodoxy. I have always thought, and in fact read, and explained to, that despite the cultural differences among the churches of Orthodoxy all canonical churches are united. So in other words all churches in the SCOBA lets say are in full communion with one another. and this is correct I know. However if said unity is true, then why for example does the OCA have a Romanian branch and the Romanian Orthodox church maintain its own jurisdiction here in the U.S. as well.

Its just perplexing to me. Seeing how if these churches are indeed in full communion with one another, why would multiple jursidictions of the same faith exist. Especially among the same traditional ethnic divisions. Is there or has there ever been an attempt to unite these jurisdictions.

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems so redundant almost, if I may say so, to have diverse organizations for the same religion.

I know someone here can clue me in, for now I remain confused.

God Bless,

ProCatholico

Okay I'm just responding to my own post because no ones responded yet and I think it may be skipped over soon. So again if any one can give me an explanation on the above post I'd really appreciate it.

ProCatholico

I really have no idea. I have kind of wondered that myself. But it seems to me that the OCA is very rebellious towards Russian Orthodox, and I always thought that was who gave it the OK. But of course I am an outsider looking in. Maybe our dear friends in Orthodox Churches can please help us to understand the realtionship among the Orthodox Churches.

PC,

Regarding the OCA, it is composed of territorial dioceses as well as ethnic dioceses for Albanians, Bulgarians and Romanians. Russians and Carpatho-Rusyns do not have a seperate dioceses because they are the majority, I presume. However, when the American Russian Metropolia was given autocephaly some parishes chose to remain under the Moscow Patriarchate and form the MP's American Exarchate. The Romanians and Bulgarians did the same. The majority of parishes joined the OCA, others opted to remain under the jurisdiction of their respective Patriarch in Europe and formed seperate dioceses. With the Albanians, the majority of parishes joined the OCA while two parishes opted to be under the Ecumenical Patriarch and form a diocese. It should be noted the Romanian Archdiocese not in the OCA has full autonomy as defined by the Orthodox.

While I am not positive, I would suspect that those parishes that chose to remain under their European Patriarchs were the more ethnic parishes with recent immigration and heavy use of their mother tongue and wanted to retain this.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Beyond protecting ones turf I have no idea.

Dan L

Dear-in-Christ Pro,

It basically dates back from the time of the the tragedy of the Revolution of 1917 and the ensuing years of communism. You may be happy to know that there were at one time two Antiochian jurisdictions in this country and they have now united and there were two Serbian (one patriachal, one 'in exile' = anti-communist), which have also united since the fall of communism. During the communist years there was much difficulty in travel and communication and some feel that the high levels of church administration were compromised. In this country the OCA represented an option of not being tied to the home patriarchate. There has been some fluidity, the history of the Bulgarian exarchate for instance is not as Deacon Lance contemplates it (but he may be only addressing the patriarchals, that is unclear).

Many of these parishes while technically belonging to one of the "ethnic" administrations are really more OCA in character than anything else. Just as some OCA "Russian" parishes can be very non-Russian ethnic. It seems the the goal would be for all to join under the local Church, that is the model we have from history. Some prefer to maintain ties with their ancestral patriarchates and that is OK for a time too.

Tony

Tony,

I was only giving a very general outline based on the limited knowledge I have of the OCA's ethnic dioceses. Could you expound on how the Bulgarians, Romanian and Albanian ended up joining the OCA or were some always part of it?

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Deacon Lance,

This link [oca.org] offers by far the most comprehensive coverage of the history from a Russian/OCA perspective.

The Bulgarians are perhaps an anomaly, I am not sure. They came in en masse with their bishop, KYRILL, from ROCOR about 26 years ago and were received as an exarchate.

I don't know off the top of my head about the others. It is wise to remember that, among the Orthodox, the Russians were the first to set up house jurisdictionally and the various ethnic parishes that existed were all under Russian jurisdiction. This changed only after 1917 AFAIK.

Tony

Actually, quite a bit of N. American Orthodoxy was unorganized, even pre-1917, but certainly more so afterwards. Many of the Greek parishes, perhaps most, were never functionally under the Metropolia's administration, but like so many others, operated independently, as incorrect as that may be.

Let's study the Albanian Orthodox as an example.

The Albanians split over Archimandrite Theophan (Noli), who crowned himself in 1919 as Bishop for the Albanians in N. America when Moscow failed to act (elect) on his nomination that came from the N. American Metropolia. Most of the priests in the 6 existing parishes rejected his self-crowning, obviously, but he remained popular with a large segment of the laity.

After helping to preserve Albania as a state at the Versailles Conference (He was a Harvard graduate and had Pres. Wilson's ear), he was properly elevated as Bishop of Durres, Albania in 1922-23, soon became the first elected Prime Minister there but was soon overthrown in a coup d'etat in 1925. He remained in exile in Austria and Germany until returning to the USA in 1932, claiming to be the Bishop of Boston (for the Albanians) which, canonically, he was not.

From 1932 to 1965, he led 10 parishes in the USA, but was recognized as canonical bishop by no other Orthodox body. Five other parishes were independent of Bp. Theophan during most of this time.

In the late 1940s, a significant number of Albanian-Americans petitioned the Patriarch of Constantinople for a canonical bishop and one who was not suspect of socialist/communist leanings [while PM of Albania, he had given formal recognition to the new communist regime in Russia. Later, while Bishop in Boston, he failed to publicly criticize the Albanian communists].

Bishop Mark (Lipa) was sent by Pat. Athenagoras, who was himself also an ethnic Albanian (Arvaniti). Two parishes went with him, several others were divided and stayed with Bp. Theophan, while two remained independent.

Bp. Thephan died in 1965 and his successor, Bp. Stephan, was secretly elevated & consecrated by the communist-dominated Church of Albania, resulting in years of court battles in the states over his legitimacy. Again, no-one recognized Bp. Stephan's canonicity.

A "deal" worked in 1970-1971 brought thirteen Albanian Orthodox parishes, with the exception of the two under Constantinople, into the new Orthodox Church in America (OCA) as a full diocese in perpetuity with Bp Stephan as canonical hierarch of the See of Boston.

This provided a proper canonical status to these parishes and the diocese for the first time since 1919.

The current Bishop of the Albanian Orthodox Archdiocese in America (OCA) is His Grace Nikon (Liolin) and the current Bishop of the Albanian Orthodox Diocese of America (Constantinople) is His Grace Ilia (Katre).

Two other Albanian Orthodox parishes were recently organized in Toronto and Montreal under the OCA's Archdiocese of Canada. Their current status and final disposition may be in doubt.

So the N. American chaos was caused by more than simply the Russian Revolution and the Cold War, but other purely ecclesial factors as well.

In Christ,
Andrew

I would like to know where you are getting your information on this rebellious OCA. His Beatitude Metropolitan Herman, Archbishop of Washington DC, of all the Americas and Canada just recently returned from a successful meeting with His Holiness Patriarch Alexi II of Moscow with the return to Russia of the Tikvin Icon Mother of God. The OCA (aka Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church) is an offspring from the MP, and has been Autocephalous since 1970 and has had the best of relationships ever since. Can you list what, if any, problems the OCA is now experiencing with regards to the MP? The OCA also has good relationships with all her sister jurisdictions be it Greek, Albanian, Serbian, Russian, Polish, & Romanian.

JoeS

// I really have no idea. I have kind of wondered that myself. But it seems to me that the OCA is very rebellious towards Russian Orthodox, and I always thought that was who gave it the OK. But of course I am an outsider looking in. Maybe our dear friends in Orthodox Churches can please help us to understand the realtionship among the Orthodox Churches. //

Andrew,

Archbishop Fan's title of Boston still survives, does it not? As I recollect, Bishop Mark was styled Bishop of Boston and of the Albanian Archdiocese. It seems to me that when Bishop Nikon was elected last fall, the same title was used.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Neil,

You are correct. In fact His Grace Nikon's installation was originally planned to take place in BOTH of the OCA's Cathedrals in Boston!

When the OCA received the Albanian Archdiocese as a constituent diocese in 1971, they moved the see of their New England Diocese from Boston to Hartford (on paper, anyway), lest there be two bishops within the same jurisdiction with the same title. However, the Cathedral for the New England Diocese remained and remains in Boston (near Back Bay).

As part of the various attempts to dissolve the ethnic dioceses into the OCA's territorial dioceses (see Article XII of the OCA's Constitution) and create what some argue would be a more regular situation, the OCA has sought to have the Bishop of Boston serve both dioceses and even sit simultaneously in both chairs as bishop of both dioceses.

The Albanians have always rejected these attempts, including the most recent attempt with Bishop Nikon. This is, after all, what has already happened to the Bulgarian Diocese and the Diocese of Western Pennsylvania where Archbishop Kirill occupies both sees simultaneously.

And we shouldn't wonder why ProCatholico starts a thread called "Don't Understand."

In Christ,
Andrew

Could it be a symptom of the whole problem of divisions in the Body of Christ?

Each one insists on being the (or having his own)boss and no one will submit in humility to anyone else.

On the other hand, my Byzantine and Ukrainian brethren can attest in their history to the pastoral sensitivity for those who were different by bishops other than their own.

So maybe we've got to get used to less precisely defined praxis and accept a bit more ambiguity when it comes to putting the Faith into action and living together in the same geographical areas.

I wouldn't fault my Orthodox brethren for this state of affairs. Other forces than strictly ecclesial ones stepped into their home and tore their seamless garment. And each of their bishops has made efforts to find a way to unity on this continent, though with much resistance from jurisdictions abroad and even some homegrown resistance.

Sometimes I wonder how the Lord's Gospel has gotten as far as it has in this world!?! It sure hasn't been because of the efforts of us poor human beings.

In Christ,

BOB