Orthodox Church in America and Culture

  • Thread starter Thread starter xixxvmcm85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
X

xixxvmcm85

Guest
I’ve been learning a bit about the OCA, and given the two parishes in my city (one of which I visited), it seems to be much more “American” in the sense of the melting pot of ethnicity that we as Americans pride ourselves on. Unlike the Greek Orthodox parish I attended once, I saw Ethiopians, Germans, Egyptians, Greeks, Russians, Ukrainians, and Mexicans all in the same parish.

I understand that the OCA grew out from the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, so on to my question:

How “Russian” is the OCA still, or has it over time begun to forge its own uniquely “American” identity in contrast to the other autocephalous churches in the Orthodox Church?

Also, is there any hope of there being a Western Rite in the OCA like there is in the Antiochian Archdiocese in America? It would be interesting to attend an Orthodox “Mass”.

Thanks!
 
I’ve been learning a bit about the OCA, and given the two parishes in my city (one of which I visited), it seems to be much more “American” in the sense of the melting pot of ethnicity that we as Americans pride ourselves on. Unlike the Greek Orthodox parish I attended once, I saw Ethiopians, Germans, Egyptians, Greeks, Russians, Ukrainians, and Mexicans all in the same parish.
The OCA sees itself as forming the American Orthodox Church, and fosters that identity. It does, in my experience, reach out to all ethnicities and doesn’t hold tightly to a single ethnic heritage as some jurisdictions do.

But you could probably find an ethnic OCA parish, just as you can find “ethnic” Jurisdictions that are not ethnic. My parish, for example, has perhaps about ten actual Serbs despite being in the Serbian jurisdiction. We have a larger community of Russians honestly. I have a friend across the country who technically attends a Bulgarian parish but most people, including the priest, are converts and not Bulgarian.
I understand that the OCA grew out from the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, so on to my question:
How “Russian” is the OCA still, or has it over time begun to forge its own uniquely “American” identity in contrast to the other autocephalous churches in the Orthodox Church?
The OCA is still pretty close to the Russians in a relational sense. They’re their Mother Church so it makes sense. The “Russianess” of the OCA is going to be probably those things not obviously Russian - certain foods, certain traditions, but from what I’ve seen they don’t reject incorporating other jurisdiction’s traditions. They don’t use a lot of Slavonic or things like that.
Also, is there any hope of there being a Western Rite in the OCA like there is in the Antiochian Archdiocese in America? It would be interesting to attend an Orthodox “Mass”.
I’ve heard the Antiochian Western Rite called an “Orthodox Mass”. I’ve heard also that Metropolitan Jonah offered, in reaching out to the ACNA at its formation, to establish a Western Rite in the OCA if it doesn’t exist already. What’s the difference between OCA having an Orthodox Mass and the Antiochians having one?
 
Wow! Thanks for the quick response! 🙂
I’ve heard the Antiochian Western Rite called an “Orthodox Mass”. I’ve heard also that Metropolitan Jonah offered, in reaching out to the ACNA at its formation, to establish a Western Rite in the OCA if it doesn’t exist already. What’s the difference between OCA having an Orthodox Mass and the Antiochians having one?
Technically it wouldn’t matter, it just seems fitting for a church which as you say “sees itself as forming the American Orthodox Church” to have a rite which would be very familiar to many Americans… also I mostly asked simply for my own personal chance to experience it. I know of OCA parishes here but haven’t heard of any Antiochian parishes in my area.
 
Is the Western Rite simply the Roman Rite with some theological modifications, or is it of another Western Rite (like Sarum Rite, Gallican Rite, or the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, etc.)?
 
Technically it wouldn’t matter, it just seems fitting for a church which as you say “sees itself as forming the American Orthodox Church” to have a rite which would be very familiar to many Americans… also I mostly asked simply for my own personal chance to experience it. I know of OCA parishes here but haven’t heard of any Antiochian parishes in my area.
I agree. I watched a Western Rite Mass earlier online (there’s a video that shows one in the Eastern Catholic Forum right now), and while I can see how many Americans would appreciate such a liturgy, it’s not for me anymore, though I’d still like to participate in one someday.

I believe there are currently two Western Rites in use - one is based off the Sarum Rite and I believe that is the one used by the Antiochians. It’s that liturgy with a few changes (no filioque, Communion under both kinds) to make it more Orthodox. The one used by ROCOR I believe is based off the Tridentine or pre-Tridentine Mass, with similar changes used by the Antiochians with the Sarum Rite.

When I say “Based off” I mean “almost identical” from what I understand. We don’t like chop-shop liturgies lol.
 
Wow! Thanks for the quick response! 🙂

Technically it wouldn’t matter, it just seems fitting for a church which as you say “sees itself as forming the American Orthodox Church” to have a rite which would be very familiar to many Americans… also I mostly asked simply for my own personal chance to experience it. I know of OCA parishes here but haven’t heard of any Antiochian parishes in my area.
Doesn’t sound “rite” to me 😃

Seriously, the Orthodox are bearers of the Byzantine Traditions. What business do they have in establishing a Rite that is based on the Roman or Western Rite?
 
Doesn’t sound “rite” to me 😃

Seriously, the Orthodox are bearers of the Byzantine Traditions. What business do they have in establishing a Rite that is based on the Roman or Western Rite?
I mean no disrespect but isn’t this the argument to reverse uniatism?

What business does the Catholic Church have in housing eastern rites?
 
I mean no disrespect but isn’t this the argument to reverse uniatism?

What business does the Catholic Church have in housing eastern rites?
The problem here is the Western Orthodox Rite has been developed by an otherwise Eastern Church. The Byzantine Rite in the Catholic Church was not developed by the Roman Church. It was Byzantine Rite Bishops who came back into communion with Rome.

Now, if it was a Roman Catholic Bishop who took his priests and came into Communion with the Orthodox, it would be a different case. I know there have been RC priests who became Orthodox, I wasn’t aware of any Bishops doing so. A priest cannot bring the Church along with him, the Church is with the Bishop.
 
Seriously, the Orthodox are bearers of the Byzantine Traditions.
The Orthodox are bearers of the True Faith.
What business do they have in establishing a Rite that is based on the Roman or Western Rite?
It wasn’t ‘established’.

People following the western liturgical tradition wanted to be in communion with Holy Orthodoxy. The parishes were allowed to keep their traditional liturgies. As far as I know there are no western rite Orthodox bishops.

One think needs to be pointed out…

This was not the result of a deliberate effort to divide the Latin Catholic church, or calve off a segment. It is not, for instance, the result of trying to get a Roman Catholic diocese to leave obedience to the Pope, by legal force or coercion.

Nor was it the result of an effort to exploit difficulties within a Roman Catholic synod to advantage.

And it was not an attempt to pretend to be Roman Catholic to spirit away some of the unwary Roman Catholic faithful.

There has been considerable debate within Holy Orthodoxy over the existence of a western rite, but it has been allowed in some cases as a ‘pastoral provision’ for some non-Orthodox and non-Roman Catholic Christian communities who proclaim the Orthodox faith and wish to have communion with and obedience to Orthodox bishops.
 
Well, for what it’s worth perhaps I can provide a little insight. I grew up in ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) and know that Church very well. My wife and I (she doesn’t understand Russian or Slavonic) later attended an English-language OCA parish. (ROCOR does have some English-language parishes, but my home parish was not among them.) To her it was far more comfortable a fit. To me the pews were odd (the wonderful priest was very touchy about defending them in a very endearing sort of way). 😃 Other than that, I was totally okay with it, and my son was baptized in the OCA.

Please excuse the really too broad history review (more info is readily available online), but the OCA does not consider itself to have grown out of ROCOR (and while ROCOR interprets the history a bit differently, I think they too would view the groups as splitting, not necessarily as growing out of one another), although there was overlap early on. The OCA sees itself as the successor to the original Orthodox missions in Alaska in the 18th century. Interestingly, although the OCA was often accused by ROCOR as being too close to Moscow during the Soviet period, it obtained autocephaly in 1970, while ROCOR came back into communion with the Patriarch of Moscow in 2007 (not everyone in ROCOR agreed with this, an several groups since have splintered off).

The whole American situation was and still is very irregular, though thre are signs that this is changing, thankfully. Before the Russian Revolution, as far as I know all Orthodox in America, regardless of their ethnicity, were under the Russian archbishop, who was for a time St. Tikhon (later Patriarch of Moscow). After the Bolshevik seizure of power, chaos ensued and the American situation (as well as communication with Moscow) became problematic as the Church in Russia was actively being persecuted. At this point many of the ethnic home Churches stepped in to set up hierarchical structures for their co-ethnics because no one quite knew what was going on. Keep in mind in the nascent Soviet Union you had the Bolshevik sponsored heretical “Renovationist” Church claiming to be the legitimate Church (never seen that way by the masses and died off by the early 1940s), you still had the ROC as a persecuted shadow of its former self, and you also had priests and bishops going “underground” and forming the Catacomb church to preserve the faith. Abroad, meanwhile, you had the Karlovsky Synod (the Church in Exile or ROCOR) abroad breaking from Moscow (with the blessing of Patriarch Tikhon, according to ROCOR), along with other splits (e.g., in France).

Okay, that’s probably more than OP wanted to know (and hasn’t even scratched the surface of the sad history, the divisions of which are directly due to what happened in 1917).

Is the OCA ethnic? Not really any longer, in my experience. Of course, this will vary depending where you are. And it’s head, Metropolitan Jonah, is an American convert (former Episcopalian). In any case, the OCA was always more Rusyn than Russian. Very many Ukrainians, people from the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, etc. And quite a few families that have been in America for multiple generations. Most of the “ethnics” I’ve met in these parishes are about as American as they come.

It is also probably, along with Antioch, the largest convert magnet in American Orthodoxy, I think precisely because it is far less ethnic than ROCOR or similar groups. And yes, I would say ROCOR was more “traditional” in the sense of preserving the forms of devotional life as they existed in Russia before the Revolution, but I would never say one or the other is more “orthodox.”

For what its worth…
 
Apologies for the long posts…

I just wanted to add that, as for the Western Rite, ROCOR also has such parishes. Not sure if OCA does or not, but I’ve not heard of any. (Note that there is no separate or parallel administrative structure for the WR–WR parishes are under the “regualr” bishops as are non-WR parishes.)

St. Tikhon and St. John Maximovitch of Shanghai were both proponents of the WR. And to answer the poster above, why shouldn’t the Orthodox have a Western Rite? We claim the fullness of the faith, not that we’re just the “eastern” division of Christianity, despite the vicissitudes of our history. We are not in communion with Rome not because we want to be difficult or disobedient, but because we have very real and serious theological issues with some of the claims of the Catholic Church.

I myself would love to go to a WR parish and hopefully someday soon will. (As an aside, the first decent translation into English of the Orthodox prayerbook was made by an Episcopalian in NYC, Isabel Hapgood, who spent 11 years !] on the project and received an honorarium of $500 for her time–there was much talk about about unification with the Anglicans in the late 19th c., and I can’t help but wonder if that was not a major impetus for St. Tikhon to support the WR, ). One of the liturgies sanctioned for use in the Church, incidentally, bears the name The Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon. It has, as far as I know, many commonalities with the earlier (1928?) BCP.

More info here: westernorthodox.com/western-rite

For what its worth…
 
The Orthodox are bearers of the True Faith.
I’m not denying that. But of course you know where I am coming from.
It wasn’t ‘established’.

People following the western liturgical tradition wanted to be in communion with Holy Orthodoxy. The parishes were allowed to keep their traditional liturgies. As far as I know there are no western rite Orthodox bishops.
Thats the thing, can people just bring their liturgical traditions just because they want to? Doesn’t liturgical traditions belong to the Church and not the people who practice them? I mean, people can easily shift not only between Liturgical Rites but also in and out of Catholicism/Orthodoxy into different Christian denominations and even non-Christian faiths. I know priests and bishops can do that to, but as part of the ordination of the Bishop he is the visible symbol of the Church, not the laity.
One think needs to be pointed out…

This was not the result of a deliberate effort to divide the Latin Catholic church, or calve off a segment. It is not, for instance, the result of trying to get a Roman Catholic diocese to leave obedience to the Pope, by legal force or coercion.

Nor was it the result of an effort to exploit difficulties within a Roman Catholic synod to advantage.

And it was not an attempt to pretend to be Roman Catholic to spirit away some of the unwary Roman Catholic faithful.

There has been considerable debate within Holy Orthodoxy over the existence of a western rite, but it has been allowed in some cases as a ‘pastoral provision’ for some non-Orthodox and non-Roman Catholic Christian communities who proclaim the Orthodox faith and wish to have communion with and obedience to Orthodox bishops.
I’m not against the Orthodox having a Western Rite if indeed a group of Roman Catholics including their Bishop and priests decide to come into Communion with the Orthodox and keep their Liturgical traditions, the same way how a number of Orthodox became Eastern Catholics at the times of coming into union by the various Eastern Catholic Churches. But if no Bishop is bringing his Church into communion with Orthodoxy, then the Rite is simply an innovation, especially if it just subsists within a Church that has its own Liturgical tradition.
 
Constantine, I think we must just view Liturgies differently. I know in Catholicism the Rites belong to specific churches, but in Orthodoxy they belong to The Church. The Church includes deacons, priests bishops, *and *laity.

A layperson owns a Liturgy as much as a bishop does. Orthodoxy still views the pre-schism West as Orthodox, so those Liturgies belong to our bishops just as much as the Roman Catholics.
 
Constantine, I think we must just view Liturgies differently. I know in Catholicism the Rites belong to specific churches, but in Orthodoxy they belong to The Church. The Church includes deacons, priests bishops, *and *laity.

A layperson owns a Liturgy as much as a bishop does. Orthodoxy still views the pre-schism West as Orthodox, so those Liturgies belong to our bishops just as much as the Roman Catholics.
So you wouldn’t mind all these “Novus Ordo innovations” if it creeps into the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom because the people want it?
 
Is the Western Rite simply the Roman Rite with some theological modifications, or is it of another Western Rite (like Sarum Rite, Gallican Rite, or the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, etc.)?
From my study of the Western Rites of the Orthodox Church (and attending some Western Rite Masses). I’ve found out that they use the Sarum Rite with some slight modifications. I actually like the Sarum Rite better than the Novus Ordo.
 
The way I see it is that the Liturgy is something that should be developed over time into what it is today. Sure we have different Liturgies today, but thats the product of 2000 years of organic development as the Liturgy has adopted to different cultures of time and places. Did the Western Orthodox Rite develop organically? No. Because none of the Orthodox Churches developed that Liturgy.
 
The way I see it is that the Liturgy is something that should be developed over time into what it is today. Sure we have different Liturgies today, but thats the product of 2000 years of organic development as the Liturgy has adopted to different cultures of time and places. Did the Western Orthodox Rite develop organically? No. Because none of the Orthodox Churches developed that Liturgy.
Well their rational was to take a pre-schism Catholic liturgy and adapt it for Orthodox use. If they let it develop naturally it would have likely just ended up being a knockoff of the Byzantine Mass. So in their view I imagine they were thinking that they would give the Western Orthodox liturgy a “jump start” and then let it develop from there.

But I don’t know how the Western Orthodox liturgy can develop naturally when they’re under the authority of the Antiochian Church.
 
The way I see it is that the Liturgy is something that should be developed over time into what it is today. Sure we have different Liturgies today, but thats the product of 2000 years of organic development as the Liturgy has adopted to different cultures of time and places. Did the Western Orthodox Rite develop organically? No. Because none of the Orthodox Churches developed that Liturgy.
But that’s not true. The Orthodox Churches DID develop those Liturgies, and they continued to develop them when they corrected them on those points which they had gone astray.

You’re of course correct that the Liturgy should develop organically. That’s one of the biggest problems those Orthodox I’ve spoken with on the issue find with the Novus Ordo and why they think it is in such shambles today.

But what do we mean when we say it should be developed organically? That it should take what’s gone before it and allow it to change slowly in accord with the need of the community. A sentence here, a word or phrase there, slowly these things change to make The Liturgy a true representation of the Community (within, of course, the Truth of The Church)

Well that’s what has been done. The Liturgy is not being used by Easterners, but by Westerners. It is their liturgical heritage. I might think your argument was stronger if it was an Eastern community with no experience in Western liturgy suddenly adopting this Liturgy but that’s not the case - it’s something that grew in their community from Orthodoxy to schism and back to Orthodoxy. That *is *organic growth.
 
So you wouldn’t mind all these “Novus Ordo innovations” if it creeps into the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom because the people want it?
That’s a completely different situation. The Novus Ordo was never an Orthodox Liturgy.
 
That’s a completely different situation. The Novus Ordo was never an Orthodox Liturgy.
I’m not talking about the Mass of Paul VI itself. Just the innovations. Since the innovations are borne out of a desire to please the masses (people, not the Liturgy)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top