www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese Of The USA

History of ACROD by Fr. Roberson:
http://www.cnewa.org/ecc-american.htm

History of OCA by the same:
http://www.cnewa.org/ecc-orthodox-america.htm

Both detail the movement of Ruthenian Greek Catholics into these jurisdictions.

A brief history of Orthodoxy in North America:

http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Church-Introduction/North-America-1794-1994/

Tony:

Thanks for the clarification, my last post was confusing.

Christeen:

Yes the foundation of the ACROD happened many years after the first split of the Ruthenians to the Orthodox Church in America (at that time the Rusian Metropolia), but the reasons were quite similar, they opposed to forced Latinization. While the first group of Ruthenians who merged with the Metropolia in the later 1800's became "russified", the founders of the ACROD were still members of the Byzantine Catholic Church and were already "latinized" and "americanized" when they decided to leave the "Unia".

http://www.acrod.org/about.html

Their priests, given the canonical problem of the Metropolia, decided to be received by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Here the title "Metropolitan" given to the Bishops of the ACROD by the EP is an honorary title (unlike the Metropolitans of the Russian-Slavonic Church).

Thank you, Anastasios, for giving me the list of canonical Orthodox Churches.

Why have I never heard the term "canonical" in Catholicism? I've never heard it stated that the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht was "non-canonical", but simply "schismatic." Is this just word preference?

As to why there isn't one hierarchy, I certainly don't know. I'm not well versed in that arena and so don't feel I can accurately comment.

As to the Ukrainian priest, doesn't at least one of the spouses have to be Ukrainian Catholic to be married in a Ukrainian Catholic Church? Or am I incorrect? But yes, I really think these rules should be relaxed, personally. We're in communion for a reason!

ChristTeen287

The OCA was NOT the part of the Russian Orthodox Church in America which remained in communion with the patriarch. Rather, it broke away from the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile when it was still a 'Temporary Higher Administraion'. It's origins are firmly and historically as a break away from ROCOR. It only established links with Moscow after the schism.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Friends,

The best of me knows better than to respond to such statements as those made above. Had it been said to me in private, I would have quietly walked away knowing that this "historical revisionism" has been sadly perpetuated by some in the so-called Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) for many years. The theory is, we gain legitimacy if we distort the history of other Orthodox jurisdictions. Ultimately you should know that the current ROCOR maintains sacramental ties only with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and tacit sacramental ties with the Patriarchate of Serbia (they are not in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, but have even set up "parallel churches" under their jurisdiction in Russia), while the OCA is in communion with every autonomous and autocepalous church on the planet, including Moscow. However, I am here to publicly correct what Fr. Mark has said regarding the OCA.

The time of the Russian revolution was a time of great confusion not only in Russia, but here also. The Russian Orthodox Church established a mission here in 1794. From that point on until the 1920s, the jurisdiction was direct and unquestionable. I quote from the OCA webpage for the "rest of the story."

"In the early 1920s the Patriarch of Moscow, Saint Tikhon for ten years he had served as Bishop of the North American Diocese issued a decree calling on dioceses outside the borders of Russia [by then the Soviet Union] to organize themselves autonomously until such time as normal communications and relations with the Church in Russia could resume. Shortly thereafter, at a Council of all hierarchs and clergy and parish delegates, it was decided that the Church in North America could no longer maintain strict administrative ties with the Church in Russia, especially since Patriarch Tikhon had been arrested...."

"In the early 1960s the OCA at that time it was known as the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of North America, or The Metropolia, entered into dialogue with the Moscow Patriarchate in an attempt to regularize the Metropolia's status. In 1970 the Metropolia once again entered into communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, which promptly granted it autocephaly, or administrative self-governance. At a Council of hierarchs, clergy and laity held at Saint Tikhon's Monastery, South Canaan, Pennsylvania in the same year, it was decided that the Church should be renamed The Orthodox Church in America."

http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Church-Introduction/intro.oca.html

There is also a more specific reference in the excellent history published by the authors Mark Stokoe and Fr. Leonid Kishkovsky more specifically speaks of the advent of ROCOR (aka "The Synod") and its relationship with the "Metropolia" (now the OCA).

"Resigning itself to ethnic devolution, the former multi-ethnic American diocese became known as the Russian "Metropolia," after the title of its then current leader, Metropolitan Platon (Rozhdestvensky). Yet even this reduced position was challenged by groups both inside and outside of the Soviet Union.

In 1921, a group of refugee Russian bishops meeting in Karlovtsy, Yugoslavia, organized the "Supreme Ecclesiastical Administration Outside of Russia." The purpose of the "Karlovtsy Synod" (or, more commonly, "the Synod in Exile," or "the Synod") was to re-unite the scattered parts of the Russian Church in Europe, Asia, and North America. The Metropolia cooperated with the Karlovtsy Synod until 1926, when the Metropolia (as well as the Russian Archdiocese in Western Europe) withdrew support in protest against the Synod�s increasingly exaggerated claims of authority. A second uneasy period of cooperation began in 1935 and lasted to 1946. Forced to flee Yugoslavia by the advance of the Red Army in the latter days of World War II, the Karlovtsy Synod ultimately left Europe and re-established itself in New York City. The explicitly pro-monarchist Synod began to establish its own "Karlovtsy" parishes in the United States in open competition with the Metropolia. Unwilling to accept this uncanonical intrusion on its own territory, the Metropolia broke all relations with the "Synod" in 1946.

Two additional challenges came from inside the Soviet Union. Although the Communist-sanctioned "Living Church" (1922-1939) ultimately failed, it attracted many sincere bishops, priests, and laypeople to its schism. In fact, one of the leaders of the "Living Church" was a former head of the American diocese, Archbishop Evdokim, who had left America to attend the 1917 Church Council in Moscow. Nevertheless, it was the moribund Russian Orthodox Church, having accommodated itself politically and administratively to the Soviet government in 1927, that was to cause the most difficulties. Officially denouncing the Metropolia as "schismatic" in 1933, the Russian Orthodox Church, like the Karlovtsy Synod, began to organize Russian parishes throughout North America in 1946.

Although the overwhelming majority of Slavic parishes in the old American diocese remained loyal to the Metropolia, these attacks from the right and the left produced deep and lasting divisions within the Russian-American community."

http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/...e-of-the-Immigrant-Church.html#divisions [oca.org]

I do not wish to perpetuate a discussion of the history of Orthodox jurisdictions in America, only to correct the distortions that had been presented.

In Christ's peace,

Priest Thomas Soroka
St. Nicholas Orthodox Church (OCA) [stnicholas-oca.org]

Bless me a sinner, Father Thomas!

What I have always found fascinating is the use, by some Orthodox jurisdictions, of the title "Greek Catholic."

I have also seen old prayerbooks from the turn of the last century that were clearly Orthodox, but which named themselves "Greek Catholic."

For Eastern Catholics, "Greek Catholic" means an Eastern Church of the Byzantine tradition that is in communion with Rome.

When it was used by the Orthodox Church in America, what did it mean?

Alex

Slava Jesu Kristu,

The history of Slavic Christianity is very fascinating to me. It truely speaks of a people who are so dedicated to the Church that they are willing to fight over who governs it. Personnaly, I don't see why ROCOR,ROCE, and ACROD don't merge with the OCA. Their canonicity and strength as a Church would be greatly inhanced. Of course, by the same token, we Ruthenians should at least think about re-merging with our Ukrainian brothers for the same reason. Then, we and the OCA could all get together in one large Slavic Christian group and bring about a true unification of Holy Mother Church. Maybe, someday.

Dmitri

Fr Thomas - please forgive me. I do not belong to ROCOR and do not wish to be a renovationist.

I sincerely understood that Metropolitan Platon had broken communion with Metropolitan Anthony and the bulk of the synod, declaring autocephaly in 1927, that communion was re-established by Metropolitan Theophilus and that this lasted until 1946.

Again, I ask your forgiveness.

With love in Christ -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Dmitri,

O.K., but the Ruthenians don't speak Ukrainian, and insist on the New Calendar.

These are of "Filioque" significance to some Ukies . . .

But Patriarch Slipyj always regarded us as one people and one Church which is why he termed his Church "The Particular Ukrainian CAtholic Church of the Byzantine-Ukrainian Rite (Greco-Ruthenian)."

Some Ruthenians would rather be with Moscow than with Kyiv/Lviv however!

Alex

Alex,

May the Lord God bless you!

I probably don't have an "official" answer for you, but only to say that it is most likely the introduction of former "Greek Catholic" who restored communion with Orthodoxy (via St. Alexis Toth) parishes that wished to retain such a moniker, and it could have possibly spread to other parishes, for whatever reason (maybe a show of solidarity, or similar ethnic ties).

Priest Thomas

Fr. Mark,

God forgives!

Please forgive me if I seem to be "curt" with such answers. The ROCOR "problem" is one which touches each of us priests in the OCA, and which, God willing, will be resolved soon. Everyone should know that the Holy Synod of the OCA sent a very concilliatory letter to the Holy Synod of ROCOR (I think about a year ago). To my knowledge it has gone unanswered.

There is no doubt that the "Metropolia" (now OCA) did have ties to "the Synod" (now ROCOR) during the periods that you describe. (At that time there was incredible confusion and desperation.) However, my objection was to the inference that the OCA simply "appeared" and is "nothing more" than a break away from ROCOR. No one denies that turbulent period. But the direct lineage between today's OCA and the historic North American Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church are clear.

Priest Thomas

To all,

By the way, an outstanding resource regarding the history of Orthodoxy in America is available on the internet (and in print) at Orthodox Christians in North America, 1794-1994 [oca.org] by Mark Stokoe and Fr. Leonid Kishkovsky.

Priest Thomas

"Personnaly, I don't see why ROCOR,ROCE, and ACROD don't merge with the OCA."

Well it's a very complex thing. Actually the ROCOR and the OCA now are like water and oil. The ROCOR, first of all, does not recognize the Moscow Patriarchate (which gave the autocephalous status to the OCA) because according to them it is ilegitimate and supported communism. The OCA is seen as a liberal, modernist and ecumenist institution.

The ACROD would sure not leave communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate because it is probably the only "canonical" diocese in stricto sensu, they saw the canonical problem of the other jurisdictions and decided to be under the EP. I don't think they would like to join the ROCOR (because the ROCOR often criticizes and ridicules the Ecumenical Patriarchate as liberal and massonic).

And the OCA would not agree with the policies of re-baptism, the rejection of all kind of Ecumenism, and the monarchist over-glorification of the Czarist past of Russia that the ROCOR praises all the time (and it often condemns some the american lifestyle).