What is the difference, if any between the
Russian Orthodox and the Orthodox Church in America ?

I believe the OCA was given autocephali and is purely an American Orthodox Church. I do not know if it is recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarch or any other Orthodox Church.

The Russian Church Outside Russia was established during the Soviet Era, is not united now with Russia, and I don't now if it is canonical.

Actually, I don't know anything, but someone has to answer. You'll probably get a more intelligent response from Father Vasiliy on the Oniondome.

Zenovia

Dear Zenovia,

Perhaps one of our respected priests can answer in more detail?

In Christ,
Alice

P.S. I have a feeling that all you would get from 'Father Vasiley' about the OCA, would be "is outrage...was it OCA in 19th century Russia??!!"

Dear Zenovia, I think you did pretty good above...and your answer is quite correct too.

The OCA is very simply the daughter of the Russian Orthodox Church; the Patriarchate of Moscow. As such it is accepted by several Orthodox Churches throughout the world (the Churches of Finland, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Antioch, Bulgaria, and Georgia). However, the Ecumenical Patriarchate also acknowledges that it is a 'part of' the Russian Church and in this way accepts it as part of the 'canonical Church'...while not allowing for its complete independence. At times, the E.P. has served WITH the OCA and at other times, it has only communicated (given the Holy Eucharist) to its bishops and priests. In other words, the E.P. has been quite inconsistent in its dealings with the OCA over time.

The Russian Church Abroad is presently in dialogue with its 'Mother Church' and solid progress is taking place in re-establishing communion with the emigre body. The Russian Church Abroad has always historically had a close relationship with the Serbian Patriarchate (who protected them during the Communist days)...and now seems to be in FULL Eucharistic communion with this patriarchate, and their bishops have recently served together publically on several occasions.

It seems that the Orthodox Churches at the beginning of the 21st Century is entering upon a new era of cooperation and closeness in many ways...and things are looking brighter for all concerned.

In His great mercy,
+Fr. Gregory

Dear Father Gregory,

Can a member of the OCA receive the Eucharist in ROCOR?

Thanks!

With love in Christ,
Alice

During the Russian revolution is when all of this got so confusing. Here's the basic scoop.

When the commies took over Russia, St. Tikhon the then-Patriarch issued an ukaz saying that the foreign bishops should associate and be basically autonomous until communism was dead. He later rescinded this ukaz; many say the commies made him.

In the West you had already two things. You had dioceses that pre-existed the revolution, and then you had the bishops from Russia who fled or were forced to leave because the White Army (wisely) said it wouldn't be good to allow all the bishops to stay and get martyred, because then there wouldn't be any continuity!

Add into that that some of the diocesan bishops in the previously-existing dioceses were installed after communism took root, and one wonders then about the motive of their appointment, etc, at this very difficult and fanatical stage of communism.

So there arose a dispute over who was in charge; were the diocesan bishops' rights being trampled upon by the fleeing bishops who believed they represented the Holy Synod? Or were they right? At any rate, in Sremski-Karlovci in Serbia in 1935, all five metropolitans that were alive and outide Russia united, forming the ROCOR as we know it today.

Soon the Western European bishop Evlogy would leave and join the EP. Later, Met Theophilus of America would form his own independent Church in 1946--the so-called Metropolia, now known as the OCA.

The bishops at Sremski-Karlovci were, until communism was entrenched in Serbia, considered THE legitimate exile Russian Church. These bishops would later come to NY when the commies came to Serbia.

In America the MP tried to take over the Metropolia parish by parish. So you ended up with MP, Metropolia, and ROCOR parishes.

In 1970, the OCA became autocephalous from Moscow.

ROCOR on the meanwhile has always been a canonical church. It severed relations with the MP officially only. ROCOR was invited to be a member of SCOBA but ended up leaving when the MP was invited. Up until 1962, Met Anastassy was even personal friends with Archbishop Michael of the GOA and then Arch Iakovos his successor. What changed that were two things; one, ROCOR bishops without Synodal approval consecrated bishops for the Old Calendar Greek Church, and the EP lifted the anathemas against Catholicism in 1965. ROCOR stopped concelebrating with the churches then that were involved in ecumenism but never really broke communion officially.

An OCA member will usually be accepted to communion in the ROCOR. ROCOR members are not encouraged to commune in other parishes of New Calendar jurisdictions. ROCOR has been in communion with the Serbs and Jerusalem all along. In fact, ROCOR bishops helped consecrate Pat Timothy of Jerusalem in the 1940's I believe.

Technically, no. There is no communion between the OCA and ROCOR. (I should also acknowledge that there is some local communion that goes on, but it is not officially sanctioned by the Church. Many OCA priests, in a pastoral situation, are much more willing to embrace ROCOR, and do so on a local level frequently.) However, relations have warmed since the growing detente between the Russian Orthodox Church and ROCOR.

Regarding the OCA and the rest of the world, it is important to remember that the OCA has excellent relations with all of the world Orthodox Churches, and some of them recognize the OCA as an autocephalous church. However, all of them recognize it as a canonical Orthodox body.

A good answer was posted on the OCA website at http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=42&SID=3

The Moscow Patriarch has NEVER backed down from it's support of the OCA. The OCA Metropolitan, when in Moscow is always given the highest honors and places as the Primate of an Autocephalous Church. However, recent developments in their healing division with ROCOR has raised some questions that have yet to be worked out. Most notably, in the Tomos of Autocephaly that was granted to the OCA in 1970, the Moscow Patriarch promised to not open any new churches in the US, which they have honored (they only have about 10 or so). What will be the status of the ROCOR churches in relation to Moscow and the OCA? Only God knows. Probably, they will be considered "autonomous" as a dependency of Moscow (like Japan). But this is just a guess. It is highly unlikely that they will be a part of the OCA, as a separate Russian diocese, although I think the OCA would embrace this solution (but ROCOR would not) - and this would solve the Tomos issue - but it is unlikely to be resolved in this manner. Again, just my opinion.

Ultimately, the OCA will rejoice that ROCOR is back into the fold of world-wide Orthodoxy.

Hope this helps.

Fr. Tom

Originally posted by Fr. Thomas:
"What will be the status of the ROCOR churches in relation to Moscow and the OCA? Only God knows. Probably, they will be considered "autonomous" as a dependency of Moscow (like Japan)."

That is, indeed, what seems to have been agreed upon; "The status of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia as a self-governing part of the Russian Orthodox Church" is one of the items whose details are being worked out by the Committees which were established in December 2003 by the hierarchies of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

For considerably more info (and lots of photos) see the entries for the month of May in:
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/english/2004.html
or
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/archive2004.html

Photius

Dear Aliki, CHRIST IS IN OUR VERY MIDST! Father Thomas has answered well, of course. But since you asked me, I shall respond also...adding my 1 1/2 cents. As Father said, techically no...but practically, yes. Pastorally, the various branches of the Russian Church have been communing back and forth for many years...as it seems the hierarchy (understandably) is the more likely to have the 'official stance' while the faithful have for many years not always understood the sometimes 'subtle' differences between jurisdictions, certainly not an unusual phenomenon. The Synod has always been the most likely to discourage inter-communion with the OCA and the Moscow Patriarchate, but for many years, the OCA and the Synod were very much in communion with one another...until about 1936, I believe...(Fr. Tom can correct me here). It seems that many times Russian emigres had less of a problem with intercommunion than the converts did...they often being rather rigid about the differences. Thankfully, these days the whole thing is beginning to come together and we pray and hope for a 'final solution' to the whole thing in the very near future. It will be, as Fr. Tom has said, a VERY good thing for the entire Church when everyone is in communion officially again. "O how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!"

In His Holy Name,
+Fr. Gregory

I am not privy to any of the negotiations, obviously. However, I would advise that the OCA also has a joint commission with the ROC and this issue is being addressed. So I would at least say that this is the ideal situation for ROCOR (from their standpoint), but not necessarily for the OCA or its mission as the Autocephalous Church in America, and this is a genuine conflict for Moscow. I think we should also acknowledge that no decision has been made, and their eventual status in America is undecided.

What I would hope for is that Moscow would come up with some Solomonic decision that would not encourage yet another "jurisdiction" in America, but might create a solution where both ROCOR and the OCA can "save face" and maybe have to work together (even in Holy Synod) as some kind of unified Church or Churches. Creativity here is needful in order to keep good order and continue the mission of an American Church, even if it is somehow still tied to Moscow.

Fr. Tom

Bless, Father Thomas!

Happy Thursday in the Second Week of the Great Fast!

What I admire most about the Russian Church is its resilience and structural flexibility.

It is being very accommodating to the Old Rite and I read on the MP website that the Old Rite is referred to as one of the "two Rites of the One Russian Orthodox Church."

Some are even speculating about the possibility that the MP may include the Old Rite saints into the Russian Synodal calendar . . . Now wouldn't that be interesting . . .

As someone who was weaned on the Orthodox writings and icons of ROCOR, I respect the very strongly traditionalist spirituality that ROCOR represents.

And I think that ROCOR is completely self-possessed of its own identity - even to the point of seeing itself as having something to tell the MP and world Orthodoxy with respect to a number of issues.

ROCOR represents, I believe, the historic legacy and uncompromising ideal of Orthodox Russia, at once traditionally Orthodox, monarchial and deeply Russian

It is closer to the MP of today than the OCA, I believe, in so many ways, even though there are priests in Russia who have left the MP to join ROCOR.

Even my old Ukrainian Catholic parish priest used to report to us during the sermon about the events involving ROCOR - so highly did he esteem it. He even had ROCOR iconographers paint our Church that was featured in the movie, "My Big Fat Greek Wedding."

I can see an all-important role for the OCA in disseminating Orthodoxy in a way that is relevant for Westerners and establishing an American Orthodoxy here.

This is not to say that there are not Westerners who are attracted to ROCOR and who become members of it - we know there are.

It is wonderful that Russian Orthodoxy can have a number of spiritual expressions within its fold, from the Old Rite to ROCOR to OCA etc.

Things will sort themselves out over time, to be sure.

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

Alex,

May the Lord God bless you!

Well, I would only ask this, that the entire OCA not be dismissed as some how "modernistic" or "more Western" than ROCOR. I think this is painting with a broad brush and I can give examples of many OCA churches which are quite traditional, including my own. I understand where you are coming from, that the ROCOR "piety" is generally more reflective of a traditional Russian piety that would be found today in Russia itself. But I think you will find this piety in many OCA churches.

Historically, maybe even tragically, IMHO, there seemed to be a concerted effort among some Metropolia and then OCA churches to somehow "rid itself" of this particular outlook. This was a mistake, or at least interpretted mistakenly, and what happened is that some of the churches (this may also sound familiar to certain RC traditionalists) lost the piety of relics, candles, rich icons, etc... However, I think that you will find many churches, even mission churches, have regained this piety.

Of course, this is not to reduce the entirety of a traditional outlook to such outward expressions. But I think it is indicative of, again, the way in which those particular expressions have played themselves out.

Fr. Tom

Bless, Father!

I hope I was NOT painting the OCA as a modern whatever!

That was not my intention!

Up here, we have strong ethnic OCA parishes, as you know.

But I think that the OCA, given its strong cultural flexibility and adaptability from within, is better positioned to reach out to Westerners than ROCOR or the UGCC for that matter!

I see the OCA as having a cultural "smorgasbord" within its parishes - if I'm wrong on this, I'll be quiet!

Our OCA Hierarch Vladyka Seraphim of Ottawa is culturally very open and yet very traditional.

(He even spells the name of the capital of Ukraine correctly - not everyone does that, you know!)

Perhaps I should have qualified what I said before to say that in some ways I see aspects of ROCOR to even be 'anachronistic.'

And one can find the same sort of anachronism in culturally-specific parishes of the OCA, the UGCC etc.

(Perhaps I should be quiet now? Yes? All right . . .).

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

Father Thomas states that the Moscow Patriarchate has only about 10 or so parishes in the USA. Without any directory in front of me - nor even a map - I am able to count 25 such parishes. That does not include the Moscow Patriarchate's parishes in Canada (all of which are in Alberta and Saskatchewan).

Incognitus

Incognitus, Correct! I have the directory in front of me and just counted 33 ...plus Mercy House Monastery-Homeless Residence in NYC. Most of these USA parishes are good size too. In Canada, I'm not sure of the number.

In Him,
+Fr. Gregory

I stand corrected. According to their website, it's 30. However, the real point remains, they are not permitted to open any new parishes, according to their agreement.

Priest Thomas

Dear Father Thomas,
Just to show how uninformed I am, I was not aware until this minute that the Moscow Patriarchate in the USA even had a website. Could you post the address? I'm trying to locate a friend who is a cleric of theirs.
The agreement which led to the Tomos of autocephaly for what is now the Orthodox Church in America does indeed state that the Moscow Patriarchate will not open new parishes in the USA. However, the original question which gave rise to this thread is a request for the difference between a Russian Orthodox Church and an OCA Church. The great majority of Russian Orthodox parishes in the USA do not belong to the Moscow Patriarchate - they normally belong either the Church Abroad or to the OCA, and both of those jurisdictions are fully capable of opening new parishes. [There are a very small number of Old Ritualist parishes with an Archbishop in Oregon, subordinate to the Metropolitan of Belaia Krinitsia, but relatively few of our readers are likely to run across them. And there are a small number of parishes belonging to the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox diocese but styling themselves Russian Orthodox, presumably for reasons having to do with the history of the individual parish.]

Incognitus

The Official Site of the Russian Orthodox Church in the USA [russianchurchusa.org]

This is pretty much as I thought it was but I was looking for clarification.

It gets confusing - each church is organized independently of each other. Some have broken away from Rome, some are in communion with Rome.

But I am learning ...

[QUOTESome have broken away from Rome,

But I am learning ... [/QB][/QUOTE]

Well, not as simple as that!

Dear Tony,

Many thanks for providing that web site. As a result of your kindness, I've located my cleric friend and found some other interesting information as well.

Incognitus

Of course Orthodox would say that either a) Rome broke away from these churches [ie. The Orthodox] or b) that these Churches [ie. the Eastern Catholics] broke away from Orthodoxy or c) Rome and these Churches broke away from each other gradually and the Eastern Catholic Churches are a product of union attempts that were only partially successful.

But it's good that you have an interest in us and if you keep to it long enough, you'll "get" us.

Anastasios

Originally posted by Fr. Thomas:
�I am not privy to any of the negotiations, obviously. However, I would advise that the OCA also has a joint commission with the ROC and this issue is being addressed. ...�

Father Thomas, Bless!
Your point is well taken that the reception of the ROCOR into Moscow Patriarchate should not contribute to the plethora of jurisdictions overlapping uncononically. Neither am I privy to the negotiations; however, you may be able to suggest to your hierarchy that the matter needs to be address, and perhaps Metropoliton Herman can address that to his peer, Patriarch Alexis. Probably, we are not the first people to consider this problem.

A complicating factor is that ROCOR encompasses a much greater territory than does the OCA. In order for the ROCOR to be a part of the OCA, ROCOR would have to be subdivided into a North American branch and another branch or branches. Because ROCOR is a small, tight-knit community, this seems to defeat whatever is accomplished by allowing them to be self-governing within MP. I assume that what is accomplished by this is simple expediency to get around customs and associations and whatnot that have evolved separately in the two branches of the Russian Church from getting in the way of reestablishing Eucharistic Communion.

Whatever comes to pass, I anticipate that the overlapping jurisdictions will be temporary, that in a few generations, no one will any longer care about the squabbles of the twentieth century or of the present moment, and canonical sanity will be restored.

Kissing your right hand,
Photius, Reader


PS Today is a special feast for me, as when I was tonsured a Reader, the Apostolos used was copied when St. Gregory Palamas was abbot (of Esphigmenou, where I was a novice at the time), which fact is inscribed in the manuscript.