Serge, I'm trying to be nice and not throw mud here, I have no wish to start making lists about what I think is wrong in the OCA. There are differences of faith between OCA and ROCOR, though. With the Antiochians it is much easier to see as they now allow non-Chalcedonians to partake communion in their Churches, among other problems. The chasm of faith has not grown so large between the OCA and ROCOR yet, but to think that there is no difference is to close one's eyes. Right now it has to do with "tendencies" and "potential problems," but just because differences are only in their beginning stages, that doesn't mean they aren't differences. "Time to mend fences". In spirit I agree, and ROCOR has already said, by council, what must happen for the fences to be mended. A few of the things have happened, most haven't.
Reception of OCA laypeople into the ROCOR
-
Justin Kissel
I saw you over on the OrthodoxChristianity board, but I couldn't say anything there since I'm not posting there now, so I'll make a few comments here. Please understand that I do not mean this to be mud slinging, this is not mean to be an anti-OCA post, I know very orthodox Priests in the OCA whom I like. This is just my perceptions of the OCA as a whole (their direction, so to speak).
The first couple things I'd mention would be neo-papal patriarchalism and officialism. I talk about the neo-papal patriarchalism in another thread on the forum. Does the whole OCA believe this? I don't think so (I hope not, anyway). Quite a number of Priests, and countless more lay people in the OCA do, though. I'm not familiar enough with the writings of OCA Bishops to know their views on this. The second thing, officialism, is an ecclesiological phenomenon that usually accompanies neo-papal patriarchalism. It is due to officialism, my friend, that you see people saying that "you must be part of SCOBA to be canonical," which is untrue (In fact, ROCOR was offered the chance to participate in SCOBA, but declined. SCOBA has nothing to do with canonicity).
The OCA's continued friendliness towards the ecumenical movement is another difference in faith. The OCA says "but we have to witness to the faith," but I disagree. Orthodox Christians don't dialogue about their faith with those outside the Church, they witness to the truth through a profession of faith and the acting out of that faith. There have been, of course, exceptions to this, but this was largely done by individual theologians, and not by entire Local Churches continuing "dialogues" for decades at a time. When the Lutheran theologians tried to talk with the Orthodox in the 16th century, for instance, they certainly got nothing like an "ecumenical dialogue".
The Ecumenical movement is based on false ecclesiological principles, and presents many contexts in which hierarchs do unorthodox things, all in the name of love. But wait! I thought the Ecumenical movement was about understanding each other, why do the Orthodox have to do things that are against the canons "out of love and for the sake of unity"? It is because the Ecumenical movement isn't interested in Orthodoxy or her witness to the Truth (as Georges Florovsky finally realised at the end of his life). Like many of the other attempts at uniting Christians between the 11th century and now, the ecumenical movement is only interested in any false union that can be reached through any vague language that can be conjured up.
Many people misunderstand the importance of the Ecumenical movement debate. It's not just about calendars (which, btw, is another difference in faith, even if some want to dismiss it as unimportant), but numerous other errors have arisen because of participation in this movement. How many of these other errors effect the OCA, I don't know.
A lapse that is felt across all jurisdictions is the issue of contracepti. In the same way our canon was understood by Beveridge. Van Espen, on the contrary, thinks that the Synod had here in view only the exarchs in file narrower sense (of Ephesus, Caesarea), but not the Patriarchs, properly so called, of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, as it would be too great a violation of the ancient canons, particularly of the 6thof Nicaea, to have set aside the proper patriarch and have allowed an appeal to the Bishop of Constantinople (with this Zonaras also agrees in his explanation of canon 17). Least of all, however, would the Synod have made such a rule for the West, i.e., have allowed that any one should set aside the Patriarch of Rome and appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople, since they themselves, in canon 28, assigned the first place in rank to Rome.
It appears to me that neither Beveridge, etc., nor Van Espen are fully in the right, while each is partially so. With Van Espen we must assume that our Synod, in drawing up this canon, had in view only the Greek Church, and not the Latin as well, particularly as neither the papal legates nor any Latin bishop whatever was present at the drawing up of these canons. On the other hand, Beveridge is also right in maintaining that the Synod made no distinction between the patriarchs proper and the exarchs (such a distinction must otherwise have been indicated in the text), and allowed that quarrels which should arise among the bishops of other patriarchates might be tried at Constantinople. Only that Beveridge ought to have excepted the West and Rome.The strange part of our canon may be explained in the following manner. There were always many bishops at Constantinople fromthe most different places, who came there to lay their contentions and the like before the Emperor. The latter frequently referred the decision to the bishop of Constantinople, who then, in union with the then present bishops from the most different provinces, held a "Home Synod" and gave the sentence required at this. Thus gradually the practicewas formed of controversies being decided by bishops of other patriarchates or exarchates at Constantinople, to the setting aside of the proper superior metropolitan, an example of which we have seen in that famous Synod of Constantinople, a.d. 448, at which the case of Eutyches was the first time brought forward.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa XI., Q.I., canon xlvj.