Why are two Orthodox cathedrals nearby each other in my city?

[Episcopalian]

Ones a Russian Orthodox and the other is labelled Eastern Orthodox…I thought Russian was part of the Eastern Orthodox Communion… wouldn’t that one Eastern Orthodox cathedral be able to serve all the different languages?

 

[Vico]

Ones a Russian Orthodox and the other is labelled Eastern Orthodox…I thought Russian was part of the Eastern Orthodox Communion… wouldn’t that one Eastern Orthodox cathedral be able to serve all the different languages?

I am guessing that you refer to St. Nicholas Eastern Orthodox Church? The Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church are not in full communion with each other at this time. There are also variations in the liturgies.

 

[ReaderT]

Ones a Russian Orthodox and the other is labelled Eastern Orthodox…I thought Russian was part of the Eastern Orthodox Communion… wouldn’t that one Eastern Orthodox cathedral be able to serve all the different languages?

America is a special situation. All the ethnic groups (Greeks, Russians, Romanians etc) brought their own clergy with them when they immigrated to the New World. As a result, we may have multiple different Churches in the same city, sometimes even across the road from one another.

 

[Anesti33]

The Eastern Orthodox Churches have, here in the American diaspora, a situation of overlapping jurisdictions. It is the same for Eastern Catholic Churches.

Generally, EOCs align along national boundaries and the bishops of a particular church are charged with the care of the faithful in that church’s home country. When Europeans emigrated to the United States, they did not immediately found an American Orthodox Church, but they recognized their jurisdictions from back home.

Therefore, we have Russian Orthodox bishops who care for dioceses here, overlaid with Greek Orthodox bishops’ jurisdictions and (arch)dioceses. We also have phenomena such as ROCOR and OCA. OCA was actually born of a schism of Byzantine Catholics who were treated poorly by Latin bishops. The existence of OCA does not obviate the perceived need for other Orthodox jurisdictions.

Continuing on, we have Serbian Orthodox, Antiochan Orthodox, and so on and so forth. It is, admittedly, very inefficient, and not how governance was envisioned in the Old Country.

Many Eastern Orthodox faithful are quite content to drift back and forth between parishes and jurisdictions based on their preference. Naturally there is much intercommunion practiced. Even with the Hellenic/Russian schism active, on the ground that is not a big deal for many Americans.

 

[Episcopalian]

Thank you all very much!! I appreciate it!
Makes a bit more sense now

 

[Diaconia]

It is the same for Eastern Catholic Churches.

Very true, indeed.

We have a number of overlapping jurisdictions, and, in many locales not enough Eastern Catholics from all the different jurisdictions combined to support even one parish.

Deacon Christopher

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The Eastern Orthodox Churches have, here in the American diaspora, a situation of overlapping jurisdictions. It is the same for Eastern Catholic Churches.

Generally, EOCs align along national boundaries and the bishops of a particular church are charged with the care of the faithful in that church’s home country. When Europeans emigrated to the United States, they did not immediately found an American Orthodox Church, but they recognized their jurisdictions from back home.

Therefore, we have Russian Orthodox bishops who care for dioceses here, overlaid with Greek Orthodox bishops’ jurisdictions and (arch)dioceses. We also have phenomena such as ROCOR and OCA. OCA was actually born of a schism of Byzantine Catholics who were treated poorly by Latin bishops. The existence of OCA does not obviate the perceived need for other Orthodox jurisdictions.

Continuing on, we have Serbian Orthodox, Antiochan Orthodox, and so on and so forth. It is, admittedly, very inefficient, and not how governance was envisioned in the Old Country.

Many Eastern Orthodox faithful are quite content to drift back and forth between parishes and jurisdictions based on their preference. Naturally there is much intercommunion practiced. Even with the Hellenic/Russian schism active, on the ground that is not a big deal for many Americans.

Is the same scenario true for any other countries, especially those that have also been “magnets” for immigrants — the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, possibly even France or Germany, in short, any country that does not have an autochthonous Orthodox church that dates from the time of that nation’s evangelization? I’ve never heard of a “Canadian Orthodox” or a “German Orthodox” church.

 

[Bithynian]

Is the same scenario true for any other countries

Yes it is. Overlapping jurisdictions between various autocephalous Orthodox churches are present in most of Western Europe (France, Germany, UK, etc.), South America, East Asia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

The situation is more uniform in Africa and the Middle East where the three Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem have pastoral care over all (well, nearly all) Orthodox within their respective jurisdictions. One exception is due to Constantinople-Moscow schism as a result of which the Patriarchate of Moscow withdrew its overseas parishes from the care of the three aforementioned Patriarchates.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

possibly even France or Germany, in short, any country that does not have an autochthonous Orthodox church that dates from the time of that nation’s evangelization? I’ve never heard of a “Canadian Orthodox” or a “German Orthodox” church.

There’s the rub…

Historically since the Schism between Rome and Constantinople et, al., there have been no local autocephalous Orthodox Churches in the West until the last century, when St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco planted the French Orthodox Church via ROCOR and the Holy Synod of ROCOR granted it autonomy. They used the Liturgy of St. Germaine of Paris (a recension of the ancient Gallican Rite), celebrated the liturgy in the vernacular French, commemorated pre-schism French Saints and even had a hierarch of which St. John was co-consecrator. Shortly after St. John’s repose, since the Church had few hierarchical supporters from ROCOR, they jurisdiction hopped between the Romanian Patriarchate and the Serbian Orthodox Church until finally being booted and now they are in some form of communion with the Oriental Orthodox.

Also it could be argued that the OCA is the local autocephalous Church for America, as it was granted autocephaly by St. Tikhon and is recognized by the Moscow Patriarchate and a few other jurisdictions as autocephalous. Which gets into the complicated matter of who can grant autocephaly: either the Patriarch of Constantinople alone, or the mother church of the new jurisdiction…which leads us to Ukraine and the mess over there, but that would derail the thread, so I’m shutting up now.

The thing that bothers me most about the Orthodox evangelizing the West is the creation of a mythical pre-schism Orthodox golden age which ended always with the imposition of Latin control or evaporated with the mutual anathemas of 1054. Methinks such commentators are ignoring so much actual history and assuming that the pre-schism Western Church was just like the Orthodox East, complete with ethnic jurisdictions, etc.

 

[TomH1]

If Vico is correct it would seem you are referring to St. Andrew’s Russian Orthodox Cathedral in Philadelphia, PA, USA and to what is called St. Nicholas Eastern Orthodox Church in the same city. The latter’s website doesn’t call it a cathedral so I do wonder why you do. Obviously, you may have passed it and it may have a sign outside that says, ‘cathedral’. The latter church belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

The accepted norm among the Eastern Orthodox churches is that only one Eastern Orthodox church should cover any given territory and all the Orthodox, of whatever ethnic heritage, should, in that territory, belong to it. However, over the years as immigrants from countries where the Eastern Orthodox churches have a major presence have immigrated into the USA they have brought their particular Eastern Orthodox church with them. As I understand no Eastern Orthodox church has given way to any other in allowing any one of them to be the Eastern Orthodox church present in the USA. Therefore, a number of Eastern Orthodox churches are in the USA.

The Russian Orthodox Church refuses to recognise the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. It believes the Ukraine should come under the Russian Orthodox Church, just as Russia thinks the Ukraine should be a part of it and not an independent country. Very sadly, politics are tied up in this as much as ecclesiology.

The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I gave the Ukrainian Orthodox Church a τόμος, tomos, of autocephaly on 5th January 2019. The Russian Orthodox Church has refused to recognise this. Some Eastern Orthodox Churches, e.g. Greece, recognise the Ukrainian Orthodox Church’s autocephaly, whilst others, e.g. Serbia, do not.