Official OCA position

[Methodius]

Something I found at the list that applies to what we were talking about before (I think!)

I believe you may obtain video tapes by the bookstore in Etna,
California that will give you plenty of examples of such
concelebrations. "World Orthodox" have "participated" in the
services of the other heretics which is forbidden by the Holy Canons
and Tradition of the Church.

Will that be enough for you? I am affraid it might not be, since you
already know your Synods "official" position of accepting the
priesthoods of the Roman Catholics, Monophysites and Anglicans, and
yet you remain with those heretics.

Just recently a Delegation comprised of Archbishop Demetrios of
America, Bishop Theodoritos of the Archdiocese of Thayateira, to name
a couple, visited the Vatican, participating in Vespers, etc., which
again, is against the holy canons and tradition of the Church. But
these examples will just be brushed aside as nothing, since no
one "actually" took communion. None-the-less, it is the "official"
policy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to allow communion to the Roman
Catholics, Monophysites and Anglican, and for those under his care to
attend and receive communion in those churches. I dont care if the
Patriarch never takes communion from any Roman Catholic, he allows
his people to partake!

Apostolic Canon 10: If any one shall pray, even in a private house,
with an excommunicated person, let him also be excommunicated.

Apostolic Canon 11: If any clergyman shall join in prayer with a
deposed clergyman, as if he were a clergyman, let him also be deposed.

Apostolic Canon 45: Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon who has only
prayed with heretics be excommunicated; but if he has permitted them
to perform any clerical office, let him be deposed.

Apostolic Canon 46: We ordain that a bishop, or presbyter who has
admitted the baptism or sacrafice of heretics be deposed. For what
concord hath Christ with Beliar, or what part hath a believer with an
infidel?

Apostolic Canon 47: Let a bishop or presbyter who shall baptize
again one who has rightly received Baptism, or who shall not baptize
one who has been polluted by the ungodly, be deposed, as despising
the Cross and death of the Lord, and not making a distinction between
the true priests and the false.

Apostolic Canon 65: If any clergyman of layman shall enter into a
synagogue of the Jews or heretics to pray, let the former be deposed
and let the latter be excommunicated.

[Gregory2]

"That is not "jurisdiction bashing"
that is cold, hard fact.
The OCA wants to be an "American" Orthodox Church
and clearly wants to be cut from its slavic roots. Although there was a great surge of Russian nationalism in this church in the early 1900's because of the events in Russia and the arrival in America of many refugees, displaced persons and political emigres, the church always held to its traditional conviction of being a church in and for America with a strictly American vocation and destiny.
The OCA today has nearly 200 parishes (out of over 600) that are of no ethnic background -- many of these were formed after the granting of autocephaly in 1970.

It is inaccurate to refer to the OCA as the "Russian Church" since a good percentage of its constituency is not Russian. Further, within the past two decades the OCA has established some 125 new parishes, almost exclusively non-ethnic in origin and employing only the English language in worship. "

Natasha, I agree with pretty much all of what you wrote here. The issue is that for many in the OCA (like me), none of this is a bad thing. My wife's family is "Russian," much in the same way other Americans are German or English -- they came from Russia about 100 years ago. I certainly know that they don't WANT to be cut from their slavic roots, but they also don't hang it over everyone's head. Russian icons are in their home, but they don't romanticize Russia and wish that they lived back then. God has placed us at this time and at this hour in North America to live and grow, and to spread His Church.

Some cradle Orthodox in the OCA may call it "Russian Orthodox" out of habit, but I know no one who would refer to it as the Russian Church. And fortunately so -- it is the Orthodox Church in America, for any American who wants to hear and struggle to live the Orthodox Christian life. I am now an OCA member (from the Greek Archdiocese) because I agree with this vision of the Church in America -- I couldn't stand being considered "diaspora" by the Greek hierarchy (I grew up here and plan to live no where else -- why should I look to another country as home?).

An interesting point is that when the OCA is called the American Church, many in the OCA see this as good, while many ROCOR-ites and others think it's bad.

TomS -- did you check out St. March Church (OCA) in Bethesda? I went there when I lived in DC a few years ago. Father John Kuchta was the priest (unfortunately he passed away -- a true man of God -- memory eternal!) I too think the GOA is too liberal, and I grew up in it

[Gregory2]

TomS -- sorry, it's St. Mark Church in Bethesda, Maryland (not St March -- I don't think there is a St March )

[TomS]

No, I have not tried St. Mark's. I have attended St. Nicholas (right across the street from my GOA Church St. Sophia) and liked it very much. I was planning on going to St. Mark and also checking out Holy Resurrection Church on Democracy Blvd (Carpo-Russian).

The church I was talking about in my post earlier was St. George in Bethesda.

[Julianna]

Nektarios

It is all very ahistorical, especially when the highly beloved (at least here) Russian church of centuries past was incredibly secularized and the origen of many of today's questionable practices.

I fail to see where on this forum the Russian Church of the past has been overly praised. You are not the first person to make such a claim, but I really don't understand where this is being done at. If anything (personally speaking), I think contemporary (1700-1917) Russian morality (much like early Byzantine morality) is romanticized and so try to avoid making generalized comments about "how great it was in the ole days". I'm not one to go as far as Schmemann and claim that there was no "holy Russia" whatsoever, but I (for my part at least) don't romanticize it either. I'd be interested in knowing which "questionable practices" you see coming from the Russian church of centuries past.

Nektarios seems to've become very anti-Russia and anti-Russian Orthodox lately

[Julianna]

Really??!!! That is very surprising!! Thanks, Nik!

The priest from the Virginia ROAC church posts here too! You should go!

[Arsenios]

Nektarios you said "In and of themselves none of the modernisms are really an issue, nor even close to worth breaking communion over." But I must say that they are a big issue even if they are not worth breaking communion over. Modernism is nothing new but has been around since the beginning of time. Modernism is having innovations because people think they can come up with better ideas and traditions than God. Sometimes God can lead us to better customs for our situation but we must always make sure it is God leading and do not drop customs by ourselves since that would be foolish and dangerous. Before long when people do that you have an empty shell of a faith which is what world orthodoxy is becoming and that is why people worry about the little stuff. It is the little stuff like customs that guard and keep people faithful to the big stuff like dogmas and tradition. But if the little stuff gets lost and nothing replaces it by God's will then pretty soon traditions change to.

You also said that "Russian church of centuries past was incredibly secularized and the origen of many of today's questionable practices." But I do not know what practices you are talking about as some other people do not seem to know either? I'm not Russian and I do not feel offended but I am perplexed.