What do Eastern Catholics think of the OCA?

  • Thread starter Thread starter andrewstx
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

andrewstx

Guest
As many are aware the Orthodox Church in America was originally Eastern Catholic, perhaps related to Ruthenians,

Their original title was Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic.

When they originally came came to the states they were were expected to merge with the Latin Catholics. The Irish and German bishops refused to grant faculties to their married priests and so they went back to Orthodoxy.

What do people here think about their situation now?

Are any members of the OCA?

The situation has changed and now married priests are recognized and given faculties by most EC bishops.

Do you think they can return to Eastern Catholicism, or have they lost interest? Is their too much bad blood and history for reunion to happen?
 
andrewstx said:
As many are aware the Orthodox Church in America was originally Eastern Catholic, perhaps related to Ruthenians,

Their original title was Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic.

When they originally came came to the states they were were expected to merge with the Latin Catholics. The Irish and German bishops refused to grant faculties to their married priests and so they went back to Orthodoxy.

What do people here think about their situation now?

Are any members of the OCA?

The situation has changed and now married priests are recognized and given faculties by most EC bishops.

Do you think they can return to Eastern Catholicism, or have they lost interest? Is their too much bad blood and history for reunion to happen?
Click to expand...
We have many friends in our local OCA parish and often attend each other’s services (Saturday Vespers, for example). Yes, we are very close theologically and doctrinally.

However, I seriously doubt reunification is possible at all with Orthodoxy - simply because the authority structure in Orthodoxy is not the same as in the Catholic Church. It’s not as top-down.

In our church, the Pope issues a decree and that’s that - either follow it or you’re not Catholic any more.

But in Orthodoxy, even if all the Patriarchs said “yes”, the people themselves could still say “no” and reject it - and the Patriarchs! And they’d still be Orthodox!

So no, I don’t think we should expect that grand reunion anytime soon. Just my personal opinion. 🙂
 
theistgal said:
We have many friends in our local OCA parish and often attend each other’s services (Saturday Vespers, for example). Yes, we are very close theologically and doctrinally.

However, I seriously doubt reunification is possible at all with Orthodoxy - simply because the authority structure in Orthodoxy is not the same as in the Catholic Church. It’s not as top-down.

In our church, the Pope issues a decree and that’s that - either follow it or you’re not Catholic any more.

But in Orthodoxy, even if all the Patriarchs said “yes”, the people themselves could still say “no” and reject it - and the Patriarchs! And they’d still be Orthodox!

So no, I don’t think we should expect that grand reunion anytime soon. Just my personal opinion. 🙂
Click to expand...
This is similar to what happened with the Council of Florence.

If there is reunification with the Orthodox Church it will not happen without massive changes in the attitudes of the common people in one or both Churches, of a kind that is likely to take many successive generations to develop if it happens at all.

When confronting the secular world we always say “the Church thinks in centuries.” I think we must apply the concept to ecumenical dialogue as well.
 
theistgal said:
In our church, the Pope issues a decree and that’s that - either follow it or you’re not Catholic any more.
Click to expand...
I sure wish that was the way the Catholic Church worked! In reality, the Pope often cannot even get the clergy behind him.
 
Aelred_Minor said:
This is similar to what happened with the Council of Florence.
Click to expand...
No, it is not. At Florence, only around two dozen bishops were present, and of those present, Mark of Ephesus did not sign, some later recanted, and many bishops outside of the boundaries of the then tiny Empire did not accept the council (this is true of the Georgians, for example, who left without ever signing the council). The Orthodox did not ever become as ‘acephaloi’ (headless ones) in the aftermath of Florence, and Orthodox Christians who say otherwise, that all of the bishops betrayed the faith and that the people without the bishops managed to preserve it, say so out of ignorance.
 
Cavaradossi said:
No, it is not. At Florence, only around two dozen bishops were present, and of those present, Mark of Ephesus did not sign, some later recanted, and many bishops outside of the boundaries of the then tiny Empire did not accept the council (this is true of the Georgians, for example, who left without ever signing the council). The Orthodox did not ever become as ‘acephaloi’ (headless ones) in the aftermath of Florence, and Orthodox Christians who say otherwise, that all of the bishops betrayed the faith and that the people without the bishops managed to preserve it, say so out of ignorance.
Click to expand...
That is why I said it was similar, rather than just saying “that’s what happened at the Council of Florence.” The point is that Church leaders can agree on unity but have this agreement rejected by the majority of the members of their Church.

Obviously if 100% of the bishops of the Orthodox Church ever became Catholic that would still be a big problem for the remaining non-Catholic Orthodox, unless your theology of Holy Orders is much further departed from ours than I thought.
 
andrewstx said:
As many are aware the Orthodox Church in America was originally Eastern Catholic, … Their original title was Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic.
Click to expand...
Are you saying the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic church that became OCA was originally Eastern Rite in communion with Rome hence the Catholic part of the name ?

If so where is info about this available.
 
bitznbitez said:
Are you saying the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic church that became OCA was originally Eastern Rite in communion with Rome hence the Catholic part of the name ?

If so where is info about this available.
Click to expand...
Yes a large part of what later became the OCA was at one time Eastern Catholic. They were so poorly treated by the bishops in the US they rightly left communion with the Catholic Church. The Carpatho Russian Orthodox Church was also once part of the Catholic Communion but also left, once again for our traditions not being respected by the RC bishops!
 
bitznbitez said:
Are you saying the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic church that became OCA was originally Eastern Rite in communion with Rome hence the Catholic part of the name ?

If so where is info about this available.
Click to expand...
I think you are correct to doubt that statement. I believe the OCA was granted autonomy by the Russian Orthodox Church to govern itself as it saw fit. This arose mainly from the fact that World War I and then the Russian Revolution made it much more difficult for the Russians to communicate with the Orthodox in America.

There are parishes that became Orthodox that left the Catholic Church due to the impositions of the Latin rite bishops. It’s a shame that some of the bishops did not attempt to learn more about their brethern before trying to force them to adhere to western standards.

ChadS
 
bitznbitez said:
Are you saying the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic church that became OCA was originally Eastern Rite in communion with Rome hence the Catholic part of the name ?

If so where is info about this available.
Click to expand...
Look up info on St. Alexis Toth and Archbishop John Ireland. There is quite a bit of info out there. Here are a few to start with.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_Toth

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ireland_(archbishop relations with the Greek Catholics is especially interesting.
 
PaulfromIowa said:
I sure wish that was the way the Catholic Church worked! In reality, the Pope often cannot even get the clergy behind him.
Click to expand...
LOL - I know what you mean! Perhaps I should have said that’s how it’s supposed to work! 😃

Still, whether the dissenters like it or not, to be a Catholic really does mean that you accept the Church as headed by the Pope as the final authority; and that’s just not the same in Orthodoxy.
 
ChadS said:
I think you are correct to doubt that statement. I believe the OCA was granted autonomy by the Russian Orthodox Church to govern itself as it saw fit. This arose mainly from the fact that World War I and then the Russian Revolution made it much more difficult for the Russians to communicate with the Orthodox in America.

There are parishes that became Orthodox that left the Catholic Church due to the impositions of the Latin rite bishops. It’s a shame that some of the bishops did not attempt to learn more about their brethern before trying to force them to adhere to western standards.

ChadS
Click to expand...
The OCA was granted Autocephaly in 1976…long after WWI and well into the communication age. 😃
 
UncleBill said:
The OCA was granted Autocephaly in 1976…long after WWI and well into the communication age. 😃
Click to expand...
Ah yes, you are correct, but I think the idea was first floated in the 1920s though, but that is neither here nor there.

ChadS
 
40.png
UncleBill:
Look up info on St. Alexis Toth and Archbishop John Ireland. There is quite a bit of info out there. Here are a few to start with.

Thank you sir. Much obliged.
 
Here is a short history of the OCA from the OCA website:
oca.org/history-archives/oca-history-intro
That should shed some light on the OCA’s idea of the the history in the OP, and others in this thread.

Fr Toth’s was the only clergyman of his time who left the BCC to remain in the Russian Orthodox Church. After his parish in Minneapolis sought another priest (a real Russian), he conducted a campaign - financed by the Russian Czar, it is held - to bring BCC parishes to Orthodoxy. The crucial issue was trusteeship, ie church ownership - an acute issue particularly in the absence, at that time, of Greek Catholic bishops and eparchies in the US. The parishes formed by those who left, were, for the most part, Russified; only a few parishes have a character that retains much of any Ruthenian heritage. I think that the later creation of ACROD reflected this break from heritage.

The prospects for some reconciliation are far better with ACROD than OCA. For both there are, of course, institutional barriers, but with ACROD, unlike the OCA, the fraternal connection remains strong.
 
The Greek Catholics that came to the USA in the latter part of the 1800s were coming to the Latin jurisdiction, and were instructed before coming of the rule that married priests could not remain in the country.

The names of the churches:

Catholic

Ruthenian Greek Catholics (from Austro-Hungary) come to North American about 1889 and eventually establish one Ukrainian and one Ruthenian exarchate in 1924. Bishop Soter Stephen Ortynsky de Labetz 1907-1916 is the Ordinary of United States of America of the Ukrainians.

Orthodox
  1. ROC MP: Russian Orthodox Church in North America, established 1794. Moscow Patriarchate.
  2. ROGCC: *Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, *1910, from Ruthenian Greek Catholics and Russian Orthodox. Moscow Patriarchate. Becomes self ruled 1924. Becomes OCA in 1970.
  3. ROCOR: Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, 1920.
  4. GOA: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, established in 1921, Ecumenical Patriarchate.
  5. ACROD: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, split from ROGCC about 1937-1938, Ecumenical Patriarchate.
 
Vico said:
The Greek Catholics that came to the USA in the latter part of the 1800s were coming to the Latin jurisdiction, and were instructed before coming of the rule that married priests could not remain in the country.

The names of the churches:

Catholic

Ruthenian Greek Catholics (from Austro-Hungary) come to North American about 1889 and eventually establish one Ukrainian and one Ruthenian exarchate in 1924. Bishop Soter Stephen Ortynsky de Labetz 1907-1916 is the Ordinary of United States of America of the Ukrainians.

Orthodox
  1. ROC MP: Russian Orthodox Church in North America, established 1794. Moscow Patriarchate.
  2. ROGCC: Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, 1910, from Ruthenian Greek Catholics and Russian Orthodox. Moscow Patriarchate. Becomes self ruled 1924. Becomes OCA in 1970.
  3. ROCOR: Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, 1920.
  4. GOA: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, established in 1921, Ecumenical Patriarchate.
  5. ACROD: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, split from ROGCC about 1937-1938, Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Click to expand...
Bishop Ortynsky was not granted ordinary jurisdiction until May 28, 1913. He was ordinary for Ukrainians and Ruthenians; his appointment came before the time of separate ordinaries.

The OCA traces its history to the original Russian orthodox mission in the late 1700’s. It changed its name in the Toth era, for strategic reasons, and again when contact with the MP was disrupted, and again with it became the OCA.

ACROD split from the BCC, avoided the ROGCC, and established a new jurisdiction under the EP. It did not split from the ROGCC.

There are some parishes in the US directly under the MP, having decided to remain apart from ROCOR, OCA, ACROD, etc.
 
dvdjs said:
Bishop Ortynsky was not granted ordinary jurisdiction until May 28, 1913. He was ordinary for Ukrainians and Ruthenians; his appointment came before the time of separate ordinaries.

The OCA traces its history to the original Russian orthodox mission in the late 1700’s. It changed its name in the Toth era, for strategic reasons, and again when contact with the MP was disrupted, and again with it became the OCA.

ACROD split from the BCC, avoided the ROGCC, and established a new jurisdiction under the EP. It did not split from the ROGCC.

There are some parishes in the US directly under the MP, having decided to remain apart from ROCOR, OCA, ACROD, etc.
Click to expand...
The ROC that later became the OCA was indeed founded in the 1700’s (mainly in Alaska and San Francisco) was tiny up and until the influx of the Greek Catholics
brought by St. Alexis Toth.
 
UncleBill said:
Yes a large part of what later became the OCA was at one time Eastern Catholic. They were so poorly treated by the bishops in the US they rightly left communion with the Catholic Church. The Carpatho Russian Orthodox Church was also once part of the Catholic Communion but also left, once again for our traditions not being respected by the RC bishops!
Click to expand...
Well, from a Catholic perspective of course nothing can justify leaving the Catholic Church.

Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have been grappling for several centuries now with how to organize the Church in a world of distinct traditions and constantly moving peoples. On the one hand there is the Early Church’s territorial model of dividing the world into jurisdictions ruled by individual bishops, and on the other hand there is the desire to meet the pastoral needs of different demographics. These two often come into conflict with each other, and for the most part both Churches have settled into allowing overlapping territories, essentially abstracting ecclesial structure from physical and political communities.

It is understandable however that some people, especially the established mainstream episcopacy of a country, would sometimes prefer to maintain the old territorial style of management and maintain that members of their communion moving into their territories should play by their rules and not expect to be able to set up their own parallel hierarchies. The Catholic Church, after very negative experiences like this one, has mostly turned aside from this way of thinking, though it seems to still be pretty strong in some Orthodox circles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top