What do Eastern Catholics think of the OCA?

  • Thread starter Thread starter andrewstx
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It got its numbers from ex-Ruthenians, but it doesn’t mean that the Church originated from the Ruthenian Church. It originated from the Russians. From the initial Russian mission, and then again with the coming of those displaced by Communism.

The Ruthenian Church didn’t schism and formed the OCA.
it certainly formed a huge chunk of it in the midwest with Fr Toth and it wasnt just laity but many clergy as well

both the OCA and the BCC (Pittsburgh Metropolia) are both unique to the USA, both English speaking, and both have same origins for most of its cradle ethnic members.
 
it certainly formed a huge chunk of it in the midwest with Fr Toth and it wasnt just laity but many clergy as well

both the OCA and the BCC (Pittsburgh Metropolia) are both unique to the USA, both English speaking, and both have same origins for most of its cradle ethnic members.
Yes, but the Church itself came from the Russian Church. St. Alexis went to the Russian bishop who took him under his omophor. Its different if it was a bishop who came to the Orthodox and asked to come into the communion.
 
Jonah was Anglican oca.org/holy-synod/bishops/metropolitan-jonah , he converted age 18 I think when they approved women’s ordination - I think you’re confusing him with whats his name the former bishop in California, Bp. Fitzgerald I think (cant remeber his first name) who was former Lutheran
I’m unfamiliar with Bp. Fitzgerald so I’m not confusing those two, but I clearly am confusing him with someone else.
 
it certainly formed a huge chunk of it in the midwest with Fr Toth and it wasnt just laity but many clergy as well

both the OCA and the BCC (Pittsburgh Metropolia) are both unique to the USA, both English speaking, and both have same origins for most of its cradle ethnic members.
I doubt that most of the Cradle members of the OCA can trace themselves back to St. Alexis. Certainly that is probably the case in Pennsylvania (where the Church is larger than a lot of areas), but I can’t see that holding true anywhere else.
 
People sometimes talk about how Eastern Catholic Churches have counter-parts in Eastern Orthodoxy - the OCA is really the counterpart to the BCC like how the Gk. Orthodox Church of Antioch is the counterpart to the Melkites.

I’m a huge fan of Fr Schmemann so I have a positive view towards them “theoretically” for lack of better word, I think they’re a good attempt to bring about native Eastern Christianity to America, but am disappointed with their recent history, especially with the resignation of Met. Jonah.

Perhaps I would be a little bitter if I lived 100 years ago, but the OCA today is rather different than back then, a good chunk (not necessarily the majority) of OCA members are not even Slavs but converts… look at the OCA episcopacy and most of them , including the current metropolitan and the previous one, are former Anglicans.

No, unfortunately I don’t think corporate reunion is possible due to different theology mostly regarding role of bishop of Rome. However, it’s intellectual and not out of bad blood since there is no living memory of the schism unless, maybe if one was born in the in the early half 20th century and heard their grandparents talk about it - but some people both clergy and laity have a bad opinion of Eastern Catholicism and Catholicism in general and you’ll find the opposite with certain people in Catholicism.

Other groups, like the ACROD there still may be some “bad blood” since it’s relatively more recent and still in living memory.
About 1/8 to 1/2 of the actual practicing OCA are likely in Alaska - there are at least 50K practicing Russian Orthodox in Alaska, many in villages, and many surveys indicate the total active OCA numbers may be as low as 115K practicing members. Going by the more generous claims, there are about 130K OCA in Alaska, and about 1M in the US. Further, in many villages, the retention rate is over 90%… as in, 90% of those baptized in the parish are practicing members during their adult life, and 130K is less than the reported 19.5% OCA for Alaska’s 730K population (which would be about 150K people. 24% are catholic, for comparison, and about 300 are ECs, with about 100 actively participating in the one EC parish. Different surveys have come up with different results ranging from 12.5% OCA to 19.5% OCA in Alaska; current census data is 730K total in Alaska, which is 90K Orthodox at 12.5%…

And most of those, while not Ethnic Russians, are not converts. Outside of Alaska, most of the OCA may be converts, but in Alaska, most are in fact Alaska Natives born into the Orthodox Faith. Those who stay in the village tend to also stay in the Orthodox Church; often, it still is the only church in the village. (Catholic villages likewise have, normally, no competition in the village, either. Protestant villages tend to have one or two parishes; if two, of different sects; the Quaker villages tend to be purely quaker.)

The Old Believers have about a 50% retention rate, according to an interview on local TV last year. As in, 50% of the children baptized in the parish return to practice in the parish, and this has dropped a lot since the rise of the internet. This has a lot to do with the lack of jobs outside fishing for RO-OB types, and the cultural isolationism. They have not and will not assimilate - many only see Televisions and Computers at school.
 
Going back to this question,
Is their too much bad blood and history for reunion to happen?
I don’t think it is because of bad blood that reunion doesn’t happen. It’s just that Orthodox want to stay Orthodox, and ECs want to stay EC (in communion with Rome).
 
Going back to this question,

I don’t think it is because of bad blood that reunion doesn’t happen. It’s just that Orthodox want to stay Orthodox, and ECs want to stay EC (in communion with Rome).
Our vocation as Eastern Catholics I’d to disappear back into our Mother Churches. It is the sin of pride that keeps us Eastern Catholic!
 
It is the sin of pride that keeps us Eastern Catholic!
Yeah yeah, I’ve heard it all before … it’s the sin of pride that causes [Eastern] Catholics to keeping being [Eastern] Catholics, it’s the sin of pride that causes Orthodox to keeping being Orthodox, it’s the sin of pride that causes ACOE to keeping being ACOE…

Every group can claim that every other group is “separated from us because of pride!”

:onpatrol:
 
Our vocation as Eastern Catholics I’d to disappear back into our Mother Churches. It is the sin of pride that keeps us Eastern Catholic!
If I am correct this statement about our vocation to disappear was the opinion of one Bishop; why is it so often quoted as an authoritative position as if that is truly the only vocation of the Eastern Catholic Churches? Secondly was it the sin of pride that resulted in the beatification of the 27 Ukrainian Martyrs in 2005? All those who died under Communism to stay Eastern Catholic were really just practicing a form of pride?
 
Our vocation as Eastern Catholics I’d to disappear back into our Mother Churches. It is the sin of pride that keeps us Eastern Catholic!
I think that’s our ultimate vocation but only if rejoining those churches is sanctioned and approved by our ultimate Mother Church. You know, the one in Rome that we’re currently in union with.

Rejoining those churches before or without such sanction being offered might actually be more prideful (“Hey Pope, I know better than you that it’s time for reunion, so I’m just gonna do it now, no matter what you say!”). 😃
 
This Eastern Catholic is attending Divine Liturgy at am OCA parish this morning.

Christ is Risen!
 
I think that’s our ultimate vocation but only if rejoining those churches is sanctioned and approved by our ultimate Mother Church. You know, the one in Rome that we’re currently in union with.

Rejoining those churches before or without such sanction being offered might actually be more prideful (“Hey Pope, I know better than you that it’s time for reunion, so I’m just gonna do it now, no matter what you say!”). 😃
To use that line of reasoning, we had no business in coming into Union with Rome in the first place without our Patriarchs blessing…do I guess we should just go home to our Mother Churches. 😃
 
To use that line of reasoning, we had no business in coming into Union with Rome in the first place without our Patriarchs blessing…do I guess we should just go home to our Mother Churches. 😃
Whatever. I just think if you’re a Catholic, whether Eastern or Western, you should follow the rules; if you don’t like the rules, don’t be a Catholic. 🤷
 
Whatever. I just think if you’re a Catholic, whether Eastern or Western, you should follow the rules; if you don’t like the rules, don’t be a Catholic. 🤷
So where is the rule that our churches need the Popes ok to rejoin our Mother Church? I’m not advocating breaking communion with Rome, but if Tone doesn’t like what we do and they decide no communion than that’s their call. Should we just sit and wait on the big wigs to do something? 🙂
 
Going back to this question,

I don’t think it is because of bad blood that reunion doesn’t happen. It’s just that Orthodox want to stay Orthodox, and ECs want to stay EC (in communion with Rome).
Plus, those Orthodox who want to come into union usually do so individually; this results in an increasing polarization of anti-union sentiment in the Orthodox churches.
 
Plus, those Orthodox who want to come into union usually do so individually; this results in an increasing polarization of anti-union sentiment in the Orthodox churches.
Also we shouldn’t neglect to look at the history of those who came into union vs. those who didn’t. It wasn’t like they were a tightly knit group and from among the bigger groups, some decided for union and others didn’t. There were already factions within these groups and the chunk that went into union did so as a block who were dissatisfied with their own communion with the Orthodox. This is why even in the countries where there are Eastern Catholics and Orthodox, the divide is clear as to which territories are those who went into union, and those who decided against it.
 
To use that line of reasoning, we had no business in coming into Union with Rome in the first place without our Patriarchs blessing…
Good point, but of course that wasn’t literally us, but our ancestors. (Well, the ancestors of some of us, not me personally.) Which is a big problem for your conclusion:
so I guess we should just go home to our Mother Churches. 😃
😛

I don’t want to twist anyone’s arm exactly, but I generally encourage anyone who is already Catholic to remain Catholic. (It’s an entirely different matter if someone who isn’t Catholic is thinking about becoming Catholic – see my signature.)
 
Good point, but of course that wasn’t literally us, but our ancestors. (Well, the ancestors of some of us, not me personally.) Which is a big problem for your conclusion:

😛

I don’t want to twist anyone’s arm exactly, but I generally encourage anyone who is already Catholic to remain Catholic. (It’s an entirely different matter if someone who isn’t Catholic is thinking about becoming Catholic – see my signature.)
It depends what one believes the truth to be. If one doesn’t think there is a difference between being Catholic and being Orthodox, then don’t switch. But if there is, and one believes the truth is in Orthodoxy, why should one not switch?
 
It depends what one believes the truth to be. If one doesn’t think there is a difference between being Catholic and being Orthodox, then don’t switch. But if there is, and one believes the truth is in Orthodoxy, why should one not switch?
I don’t want to go beyond the scope of this thread, but suffice it to say: I believe there is a difference, but I don’t believe the papal teachings (include the IC, Assumption, PI, and UOJ) to be heretical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top