American Orthodox Church

[Teke]

My church is a small American Orthodox church. My bishop (who is married) and I are in agreement that Orthodoxy must be presented in an American way for Americans to be able to fully understand Orthodoxy.

We are a diverse group, Americans, Russians and Lebanese. Tho we have had Greek Orthodox visit our church, they did not continue to attend. But we have also had converts who had attended Greek churchs but felt more comfortable with us.

According to my bishop, there is an underground aspect of our connection with the Russian Orthodox. I am studying this more. And would like any insight any can provide on this. (surely this isn't just a old v new calendar issue)

I don't want to say there is conflict. But I would say there is some confusion in the laity as to what this means exactly.

For instance, in small matters, such as hymnals. I point this out as it has to do with language. We presently have a Russian lady directing our choir effort. She being a cradle Orthodox from Russia, insists on the hymns being done in a Russian form. But from my observation, in English this doesn't sound very good.

I have asked her to explore other Orthodox who have changed their hymns to fit the American language better, meaning so they sound better. But she is resistant to even considering the matter.

Our choir practice can be frustrating somewhat, as the Russian lady tries to fit English in a Russian form. Which, as I have observed is a more solemn form than some of the Greek hymns I've heard.

I pointed out that some of the Greek churchs who have changed their hymns to English sound much better. IMHO some have done a much better job.
You should hear our hymn to the Theotokas compared to a Greek English version. I like the more cheerful spirit of the Greek version. And in English it sounds much better to me, than the Russian. The Russian tones are much deeper and harder to sing. And when your dealing with a group that is not a well practiced choir, such as us, an easier style would seem to be the best to use.

I realize there is much to work out for Orthodoxy to come into it's own in America. I'd like to hear what other American Orthodox have to say about the matter.

Just please do not turn this thread into a debate about who is right and wrong. I know some cradle Orthodox do not agree with our synods decisions. (for those interested, here is the 2005 declaration of the synod http://www.apostle1.com/statement_and_declaration_2005_holy_synod.htm)

[eoe]

rut roh raggy.

I love ya Teke but you just threw gasoline all over the place and handed out matches.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Canonical Orthodox bishops are not married.

[Nickolai]

Is Bishop Aftimios Ofiesh the founder of your Jurisdiction?

[Teke]

rut roh raggy.

I love ya Teke but you just threw gasoline all over the place and handed out matches.

Then I suppose I'll find out what that means.:scratch:

[eoe]

If I were to tell you that I was going to go to church naked and was wondering whether to paint my nails green or red for the event do you suppose that people are going to post about the color of my nails or the fact that I was planning on going to church naked?

In essence this is what your post does. You have led an elephant into the room and you want to talk about the weather. It is not going to be that easy.

[Teke]

Canonical Orthodox bishops are not married.

The link I provided has a link on what is cannonical.
In my understanding, Orthodox are not to be canonical in the sense of a neo papacy.
I can only assume your statement is in ref. to the Patriarch of Constantinople (as a neo papacy). But I'm only assuming, not sure what you mean. Forgive me if I misunderstand.

[Teke]

Is Bishop Aftimios Ofiesh the founder of your Jurisdiction?

Maybe you can help me out on this Nickolai, since you seem to be more familiar with the Russian set. ;)

I'm not clear yet on what my bishop meant by an underground part of the Russian church. He gave me a booklet to read on the Orthodox Church Calendar.
I do know for sure we are not affiliated with ROCOR. But I am under the impression this has something to do with Moscow.

So I'd have to check to answer your question. Our Metropolitan Archbishop is Joseph Thaddeus SSJt, Ph. D., if that helps any.

[Teke]

Here is a site I found on our succession Nickolai.
http://www.apostle1.com/thaddeus_lines1.htm

[Nickolai]

http://www.apostle1.com/thaddeus_lines1.htm

"In 1923,Metropolitan Platon,with the approval of Patriarch Tikhon elevated Bishop +Aftimios to the position of Archbishop"

The American Orthodox Catholic Church was the first attept in American Orthodoxy to create an autocephalous Church. It was started by Met. Platon with the blessing of the Russian Synod. To lead this group he selected Bishop Afimios Ofiesh, who was the Syrian Bishop under the Russian Church at that time (he was a in the see of Brooklyn I believe)

Well, long story short, Bishop Aftimios broke his monatic vows, and got married. He was de facto excommunicated, and two "Churches" sprang forth from his mess. On is called the "Theocacna" and the other I'm afraid is the one that you're affiliated with Teke. I hate to be the one to say it, but that jurisdiction is NOT Orthodox.

for more info regarding the AOCC look here http://orthodoxwiki.org/American_Orthodox_Catholic_Church I happen to know the person who wrote this article, And he is very credible

[Oblio]

Oh dear ...

[Michael the Iconographer]

The link I provided has a link on what is cannonical.
In my understanding, Orthodox are not to be canonical in the sense of a neo papacy.
I can only assume your statement is in ref. to the Patriarch of Constantinople (as a neo papacy). But I'm only assuming, not sure what you mean. Forgive me if I misunderstand.
Shakes head in disbelief. I am not even going to touch this. You can believe as you like because nothing we say will ever change your mind on the matter. However, your church is not Orthodox.

[Teke]

http://www.apostle1.com/thaddeus_lines1.htm

"In 1923,Metropolitan Platon,with the approval of Patriarch Tikhon elevated Bishop +Aftimios to the position of Archbishop"

The American Orthodox Catholic Church was the first attept in American Orthodoxy to create an autocephalous Church. It was started by Met. Platon with the blessing of the Russian Synod. To lead this group he selected Bishop Afimios Ofiesh, who was the Syrian Bishop under the Russian Church at that time (he was a in the see of Brooklyn I believe)

Well, long story short, Bishop Aftimios broke his monatic vows, and got married. He was de facto excommunicated, and two "Churches" sprang forth from his mess. On is called the "Theocacna" and the other I'm afraid is the one that you're affiliated with Teke. I hate to be the one to say it, but that jurisdiction is NOT Orthodox.

for more info regarding the AOCC look here http://orthodoxwiki.org/American_Orthodox_Catholic_Church I happen to know the person who wrote this article, And he is very credible

I'll look into this more. But we are not "Theocacna", nor are we AOCC.

As I understand, one of the reasons we are not part of ROCOR is in relation to Pat. Tikhon and rulings after his.
IOW there are a majoritiy of Orthodox churchs that don't recognize any decisions after Tikhons as of yet.
Seeing those which came after his as politically motivated. (the Russians themselves did not trust that later hiearchy).

This is likely what my bishop was trying to relate to me in a meek manner. There seems to be a political agenda on one part, while the working of the Holy Spirit is under no such restrictions.

I'm sure there is more to this........

[ThePilgrim]

Teke,

In all due respect, your Church is not Orthodox. We're not saying that to be mean, but out of concern for you. Your Church is not just out of communion with Moscow, but with the entire Orthodox world.

Your bishops are uncanonical both because they are not in communion with the rest of the Church and because of how they became bishops. According to that website, thy were made bishops first by an excommunicated monk (Bsp Afimtesh) and then by whoever else they could get to reordain and concecrate them, just to be on the safe side. This is not how the Church of Christ operates.

Please, look into attending a legitimate Orthodox Church.

In love,
John

[Orthocat]

While we are on the subject, what do you all think of the Ukranian Autocephalous Orthodox?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Autocephalous_Orthodox_Church


A mission is starting close by and I had never heard of them before....

[ShiFuBill]

Regarding a neo-papacy, out church has the same heirarchy it has had for centuries. To be in communion is to be part of the one Church. And there is only ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Church is the body of Christ, and in Christ there is no division. If my church for any reason went out of communion with our bishop, and did not go under another, we would cease being the Church. We may still be a church, but not the Church. The Church is like a power grid, with the Holy Spirit flowing through it. To 'unplug' ones self from communion is to remove ones self from the church as a whole.
To present Orthdoxy to Americans in an American way is a good thing, just as my church here tries to present Orthodoxy to the Chinese in a Chinese way. But we would never attempt to do so without the Grace of the Holy Spirt flowing through the communion of the Holy Orthodox Church.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but you seem new to this. I'd suggest you look into a bit more, maybe start by looking into the history of the Church, the early history not just recent political situations. To be Orthodox is more than just to perform the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or to have Apostolic Sucession, or burn incense, kiss icons, and wear nice vestaments. And it much more than synodical decisions and who agrees with what. To be Orthodox is to be one body, Christ's body. And one exists in the body of Christ only in unity.\

sorry if I got any of that wrong

[Teke]

Teke,

In all due respect, your Church is not Orthodox. We're not saying that to be mean, but out of concern for you. Your Church is not just out of communion with Moscow, but with the entire Orthodox world.

Your bishops are uncanonical both because they are not in communion with the rest of the Church and because of how they became bishops. According to that website, thy were made bishops first by an excommunicated monk (Bsp Afimtesh) and then by whoever else they could get to reordain and concecrate them, just to be on the safe side. This is not how the Church of Christ operates.

Please, look into attending a legitimate Orthodox Church.

In love,
John

The Patriarch of Constantinople doesn't seem to hold the same opinion as you do. When he visited here in New Orleans (after Katrina) and met with my bishop, he didn't tell him that we are not Orthodox. And he rccognized his succession clearly.

I believe some are confused on this matter.:sigh:

[Nickolai]

The Patriarch of Constantinople doesn't seem to hold the same opinion as you do. When he visited here in New Orleans (after Katrina) and met with my bishop, he didn't tell him that we are not Orthodox. And he rccognized his succession clearly.

I believe some are confused on this matter.:sigh:

You're gonna have to prove that. I know of no Church that recognises the AOCC, which IS what Church you're in.

[ThePilgrim]

The Patriarch of Constantinople doesn't seem to hold the same opinion as you do. When he visited here in New Orleans (after Katrina) and met with my bishop, he didn't tell him that we are not Orthodox. And he rccognized his succession clearly.

I believe some are confused on this matter.:sigh:
Dear Teke,

Please understand that I'm not saying this to be mean or close minded. I'm really saying this out of concern for you. The Church you are is not part of the Orthodox Church. The Church is an organic whole, a communion. You are not in communion with any Orthodox church. If you were to go to an Orthodox Church, you could not communion, and nor could Orthodox people who visited your parish.

I would need to know more about the circumstance surrounding the visit of the EP. Were you there? What did Bartholemew say that clearly recognized your bishop as a real bishop? Did the two of them meet alone, or did your bishop come up to the EP when he was someone, with your bishop dressed as a bishop?

Grace and peace,
John

[Teke]

You're gonna have to prove that. I know of no Church that recognises the AOCC, which IS what Church you're in.

I am sure we are the American Orthodox Church, and not the AOCC.
Would a picture of the Patriarch giving his blessing to my bishop be proof enough.......
See (http://stjohnsorthodox.info/gallery2/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=69&g2_GALLERYSID=762ae2381214dc48e03d9cc08bb274d9) pic #0187 at bottom. My bishop is on the left, the Patriarch on the right. The succession of my bishop is confirmed by the Patriarch before the blessing was given. There were many witnesses present, including the governor of this state.

[Orthocat]

I am sure we are the American Orthodox Church, and not the AOCC.
Would a picture of the Patriarch giving his blessing to my bishop be proof enough.......
See (http://stjohnsorthodox.info/gallery2/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=69&g2_GALLERYSID=762ae2381214dc48e03d9cc08bb274d9) pic #0187 at bottom. My bishop is on the left, the Patriarch on the right. The succession of my bishop is confirmed by the Patriarch before the blessing was given. There were many witnesses present, including the governor of this state.


I don't know much about anything when it comes to heirarchi...hierach...tiers of church governments...but that looks pretty legit to me.

[nutroll]

I am sure we are the American Orthodox Church, and not the AOCC.
Would a picture of the Patriarch giving his blessing to my bishop be proof enough.......
See (http://stjohnsorthodox.info/gallery2/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=69&g2_GALLERYSID=762ae2381214dc48e03d9cc08bb274d9) pic #0187 at bottom. My bishop is on the left, the Patriarch on the right. The succession of my bishop is confirmed by the Patriarch before the blessing was given. There were many witnesses present, including the governor of this state.
Anyone can receive a blessing from the Patriarch. The Patriarch was visiting a Greek Orthodox Cathedral, not your bishop's cathedral. That would have been more of a sign of recognition. It is possible that the Patriarch had no idea who was asking for a blessing, and only knew that the person was a bishop. I doubt very much that there was any examination of his credentials. It is the same blessing that I as a lay person would receive if I walked up to the Patriarch and said "Bless Master" and held out my hands for a blessing.

I too feel that I must point out that this church is not a part of the Orthodox Church. We have no married bishops within the Orthodox Church. Does he claim to be a member of SCOBA? Does your bishop regularly meet with other Orthodox bishops outside of your jurisdiction? I am concerned that this is a very strange group. The section from the link in your OP about the actions they are taking with regard to the emails and phone calls they receive sound like pure paranoia. Forgive me if I have offended, but there are many groups that claim Orthodoxy which are far from it.

[Greg the byzantine]

The Patriarch of Constantinople doesn't seem to hold the same opinion as you do. When he visited here in New Orleans (after Katrina) and met with my bishop, he didn't tell him that we are not Orthodox. And he rccognized his succession clearly.

I believe some are confused on this matter.:sigh:

first you call the Patriarch Bartholomew a neo-papist, and then you say he recognizes your succesion.

Second I can not see the pictures, they are all taken from a distance, and the links are broken. No Proof there.

Third, Unless there is something written on paper and signed by both hierarchs then absolutely nothing of importance happened.

Fourth, You really set yourself up on this one. You could have totally asked your question without mentioning the fact that yuor bishop was married.

Fifth, those who play with fire are bound to get burned (I don't know I just felt like saying that :P )

[kamikat]

I am sure we are the American Orthodox Church, and not the AOCC.
Would a picture of the Patriarch giving his blessing to my bishop be proof enough.......
See (http://stjohnsorthodox.info/gallery2/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=69&g2_GALLERYSID=762ae2381214dc48e03d9cc08bb274d9) pic #0187 at bottom.


the picture is at http://stjohnsorthodox.info/gallery2/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=69&g2_GALLERYSID=762ae2381214dc48e03d9cc08bb274d9, right? So when you go to the home page of that gallery, http://stjohnsorthodox.info/ , it says St John's Orthodox church and the American Orthodox Catholic Church, which mean it is the AOCC.

kamikat

[kamikat]

Has anyone looked at the "staff" page? None of the clergy mention having attending any of the US seminaries. His Grace appears to have done his undergrad and grad at Notre Dame and he doesn't say where his D.Div comes from. The deacon appears to have done his undergrad and grad work in kinesiology. Does that seem a little odd to anyone else?

[ufonium2]

To answer your question: Our perception of music is linked to our perception of language. For instance, when Russians ask a question, it sounds to English-speakers like a threat. But it's not; it's just the way they inflect questions. Slavs developed their own chant because Greek chant really didn't work with Slavonic text.
Eventually, for a variety of reasons, Russian chant took on a more Western character than other forms of Orthodox liturgical music.

That makes your statement about Greek music working better with English text odd to me. It's been my experience that not only is Greek music generally weirder to Americans than Russian music (no offense to our Byzantine members--you know what I mean), but English translations I've seen shoehorned into Greek liturgical hymns are horrendous. Like, they have the words "the" and "thee" back to back, and stuff like that.

What translation is your choir director using? The Jordanville translations with the Kievan ("little Russian") tones are, in my opinion, the best. Not just because I like the tones better, but because the words fit the music well, yet still make sense.

[Teke]

first you call the Patriarch Bartholomew a neo-papist,
No, I never stated such. I said some Orthodox see him in that way.

and then you say he recognizes your succesion.

Second I can not see the pictures, they are all taken from a distance, and the links are broken. No Proof there.

Third, Unless there is something written on paper and signed by both hierarchs then absolutely nothing of importance happened.

Fourth, You really set yourself up on this one. You could have totally asked your question without mentioning the fact that yuor bishop was married.

Fifth, those who play with fire are bound to get burned (I don't know I just felt like saying that :P )His Holiness' attendant anounces each person he is greeting or blessing. My bishop is announced to him as Archbishop Joseph, and the Patriarch can clearly see there is no monastic cloth on his hat. The Patriarch requested his succession from him before blessing him.
Like I said, there were plenty of witnesses.
It is possible that the Patriarch had no idea who was asking for a blessing, and only knew that the person was a bishop. I doubt very much that there was any examination of his credentials.

Or are you saying that the Patriarch doesn't recognize the attire of clergy, or maybe he didn't hear who he was greeting......come on.

_________________

As to the other posters comment on my bishops educational training at Notre Dame. Yes, he is a convert from the Roman catholic church. He was originally to be a Roman priest, his wife, was a former Roman catholiic nun. They are both very much educated on church history and are quite aware of how the Lord has led them.

So what are people trying to tell me, that you can't be a convert of the clergy of Orthodoxy or some such thing.

I also don't see the big deal with being monastic and then deciding to leave monasticism to be married. There are plenty who do and have done so.
If the holy fathers have no problem with this, then why does the laity?

BTW, I haven't seen any references, such as written documents stating who is and isn't in communion with one another.
So whether you call us AOC or AOCC, where is the statement that their synod is not recognized by the others.

[Teke]

Has anyone looked at the "staff" page? None of the clergy mention having attending any of the US seminaries. His Grace appears to have done his undergrad and grad at Notre Dame and he doesn't say where his D.Div comes from. The deacon appears to have done his undergrad and grad work in kinesiology. Does that seem a little odd to anyone else?

Seminary training is secondary to the teachings of the fathers themselves.Ordination does not depend on what seminary you attended. Least it's not important to the fathers.Just ask them, or check out some older ones formal training and how it came about. ;)

[Teke]

Thank you for the lovely post.

To answer your question: Our perception of music is linked to our perception of language.

I'm thinking about this. I'm in the south of the US, a mix of country twang and cajun french. How would that sound from a Russian tone or Greek tone. I've heard it, and it don't jive IMHO.

For instance, when Russians ask a question, it sounds to English-speakers like a threat. But it's not; it's just the way they inflect questions.I've learned about this from the Russian brethen of my church.

Slavs developed their own chant because Greek chant really didn't work with Slavonic text. I've talked with some folks about this. There is some mix there from what I gather. If I recall it had something to do with the new Russian language.

Eventually, for a variety of reasons, Russian chant took on a more Western character than other forms of Orthodox liturgical music. I haven't heard any examples of this. I've been comparing different hymns from both Greek and Russian.

That makes your statement about Greek music working better with English text odd to me. It's been my experience that not only is Greek music generally weirder to Americans than Russian music (no offense to our Byzantine members--you know what I mean), but English translations I've seen shoehorned into Greek liturgical hymns are horrendous. Like, they have the words "the" and "thee" back to back, and stuff like that.

What translation is your choir director using? The Jordanville translations with the Kievan ("little Russian") tones are, in my opinion, the best. Not just because I like the tones better, but because the words fit the music well, yet still make sense.I don't know what translation the director is using, I just know it don't sound quite right to me. I think we can do better.

There is a site that plays the Greek and then the English to hear the difference. I will try to find it again and post it. I really liked the way they did the "It is truly meet to bless you o Theotokas...."(very cheerful)
Their Trisagion and Cherubrimic hymn sounded different with the English change.

[kamikat]

As to the other posters comment on my bishops educational training at Notre Dame. Yes, he is a convert from the Roman catholic church. He was originally to be a Roman priest, his wife, was a former Roman catholiic nun..

Sure, he can be a convert. The associate priest at my church has a similar background, but he also went to St Vlad's. The fact that his wife turned her back on her vows is a bit concerning. Even if the church she was in wasn't "The Church", she still made a vow of chasity before Our Lord.

As for their canonicalness (is that a word:P ), they are not linked to any of the major canonical church websites. The AOCC is listed on the website for "regilous groups that use Orthodox in their names but are not canonical Eastern Orthodox Churches"
http://aggreen.net/other_orthodox/other.html

At the top of this page, they have this statement
If you are in doubt...
...about the purported canonicity of a particular jurisdiction, check this World Orthodox page maintained by the Orthodox Church in America. If the jurisdiction is not listed there, it most likely is not in communion with the worldwide autonomous and autocephalous canonical Orthodox churches.
18. Guard thyself then, O man; thou hast the signs of Antichrist; and remember them not only thyself, but impart them also freely to all. If thou hast a child according to the flesh, admonish him of this now; if thou hast begotten one through catechizing, put him also on his guard, lest he receive the false one as the True. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work. I fear these wars of the nations; I fear the schisms of the Churches; I fear the mutual hatred of the brethren. But enough on this subject; only God forbid that it should be fulfilled in our days; nevertheless, let us be on our guard. And thus much concerning Antichrist. — St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture XV
The clicky didn't come over, but here it is http://oca.org/OCworldindex.asp?SID=2 and no, the AOCC is not listed.

[Teke]

Sure, he can be a convert. The associate priest at my church has a similar background, but he also went to St Vlad's. The fact that his wife turned her back on her vows is a bit concerning. Even if the church she was in wasn't "The Church", she still made a vow of chasity before Our Lord.

As for their canonicalness (is that a word:P ), they are not linked to any of the major canonical church websites. The AOCC is listed on the website for "regilous groups that use Orthodox in their names but are not canonical Eastern Orthodox Churches"
http://aggreen.net/other_orthodox/other.html

At the top of this page, they have this statement

Don't see them listed.

The clicky didn't come over, but here it is http://oca.org/OCworldindex.asp?SID=2 and no, the AOCC is not listed.The American Orthodox Church is plainly displayed, 3rd row, fifth down. I posted a link to their synods declaration.
The 2005 Declaration of the Holy Synod of Bishops and Clergy

of the

American Orthodox Church

North American Orthodox Church

American Orthodox Catholic Church


Say it however you like. They are the synod of the American Orthodox Church.
.
The fact that his wife turned her back on her vows is a bit concerning. Even if the church she was in wasn't "The Church", she still made a vow of chasity before Our Lord.

The Lord works in mysterious ways. This lady has cerebral palsy, and most of the orders would not take her in.
Seems God had other plans for these two wonderful people. And that was to be in His Church. :)

[ufonium2]

The American Orthodox Church is plainly displayed, 3rd row, fifth down..

That's the OCA. Orthodox Church in America. If that were your church, and you're in the South, your bishop would be Abp. DMITRI.

[kamikat]

Don't see them listed.
The American Orthodox Church is plainly displayed, 3rd row, fifth down.

http://oca.org/OCworldindex.asp?SID=2
The third over, fifth down is the Church of Japan. The fourth down is the Orthodox Church in America. Are you claiming that your church is OCA? When you use their parish finder, there is only one OCA church in Louisiana and it's St Andrew of Crete Mission in New Orleans. The Orthodox Church in America is not the same at the American Orthodox Church.

[choirfiend]

Teke,

The Orthodox Church in America (3rd row, 5th down) is NOT the American Orthodox Church. The AOCC (or AOC, if you prefer to abbreviate it that way) is NOT part of the Orthodox Church worldwide. It is in communion with NO real Orthodox. If you want to search some more, check out OrthodoxyinAmerica.net. It lists the Orthodox jurisdictions in America in its search. The AOCC is just not Orthodox. This must be upsetting, but it's the truth. I hope you would consider attending a real Orthodox Church.

For more proof that the OCA is not the AOCC, email Fr. John Matusiak (info at oca dot org) and ask him. He will tell you.

[Teke]

Ok, your all confusing me with all the initials. Tell you what.
Tell me if there is or is not a Metropolitan Archbishop Joseph Thaddeus?

[Greg the byzantine]

There is a site that plays the Greek and then the English to hear the difference. I will try to find it again and post it. I really liked the way they did the "It is truly meet to bless you o Theotokas...."(very cheerful)
Their Trisagion and Cherubrimic hymn sounded different with the English change.

I think you are referring to eikona's learn to chant program. Eikona is an all women trio:
http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/chant.asp#liturgy

Their style of chant is a little bit different than what you might here from a truly byzantine chanter in a Greekiochian (Sorry for steeling your word Matrona) Church

[RobNJ]

Ok, your all confusing me with all the initials. Tell you what.
Tell me if there is or is not a Metropolitan Archbishop Joseph Thaddeus?

You probably don't want to see what happens when you Google THAT name :doh:

[choirfiend]

No. Not in any Orthodox Church.

Constantinople (in the US as the Greek Archdioscese)
Alexandria
Antioch (in the US as the Antiochian Orthodox Archdioscese)
Jerusalem
Russia
Georgia
Serbia
Romania
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Greece
Albania
Poland
Czech
Orthodox Church in America
Sinai
Finland
Japan
Ukraine
and ROCOR is fixing things with Russia

are the only legitimate Orthodox Churches in the world.

Take another look at the list in the OCA website. Look at the priivate website. Look at OrthodoxyinAmerica. Look at this site
http://www.scoba.us/
which is the Standing Council of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of America, which outlines the Orthodox jurisdictions in America.


It's obvious that you were unaware of the non-Orthodoxy of your church. Goodness knows we don't mean to attack you. Now that we know that you're a member of a fake-Orthodox group, we want to help you run far far away, hopefully in love, straight to His Church.

[Teke]

You probably don't want to see what happens when you Google THAT name :doh:

I did, and I'm going to get an explanation from my bishop or deacon on this quick as possible. I may be all confused about this myself. I will post what they let me know, or have them post themselves.
I want some answers now myself.

[choirfiend]

Even at wikipedia, the article that claims to detail the american orthodox church is being disputed b/c this church is NOT Orthodox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Orthodox_Catholic_Church

[Lotar]

It's so sad that these imposters set up these deceptions so well and people don't even know they're not in an Orthodox Church.

He even goes so far as to get his picture taken with the EP to try and prove himself. Nevermind that it is against canon law for a bishop to be married.

If they wouldn't allow the Evangelical OC converts to be bishops, they certainly wouldn't allow an ex-RC priest and nun, who broke their monastic vows of celibacy.

[Teke]

Please hold the comments until I get an official explanation from the clergy. I can't get a hold of the bishop right now. But I will speak with the deacon tonight after his jail ministry.

I still think this has to do with Tikhon. But since I'm only a layperson, and not clergy, I can't speak for them.

So don't insult my clergy until the facts are presented. Please.

[ArnautDaniel]

Canonical Orthodox bishops are not married.

I was under the impression a priest or bishop could not marry after becoming a priest or bishop, but that if they were married before taking orders the marriage stands.

[choirfiend]

Men may be married and then ordained as a priest, but bishops are appointed from the monastic ranks or from widowers because of the intense nature of their role.

[Teke]

Men may be married and then ordained as a priest, but bishops are appointed from the monastic ranks or from widowers because of the intense nature of their role.

Can you quote the cannon and synod on that.
And......
What if you don't have monastic ranks to get a bishop here in the US. The American should accept a Greek or Russian because they are monastics.
What happened to necessity and economy of the Church?

I could also quote quite a few early fathers who did not agree a bishop had to be a monastic.;)

Even the Apostles were not all monastics.

[choirfiend]

Nope, not petty political issues---weird, child-molesting people who put themselves in robes, declare themselves bishops, and cause confusion for a lot of people.


But, I would suggest that your post isnt in fellowship or asking earnest questions, so it might be very prudent to edit it.

[Lotar]

Can you quote the cannon and synod on that.
And......
What if you don't have monastic ranks to get a bishop here in the US. The American should accept a Greek or Russian because they are monastics.
What happened to necessity and economy of the Church?

I could also quote quite a few early fathers who did not agree a bishop had to be a monastic.;)

Even the Apostles were not all monastics.

St. Gregory of Nyssa was a married bishop. This was a later Church canon.

There are monastaries in the US, and there are always widowed priests (which the majority of US bishops came from).

I'm looking for the canon...

[Matrona]

I think the canon is from the Quinisext Council. It's from the 600's, IIRC... it's a canon determining the discipline and recognizing that up to that point, there were married bishops (St. Gregory the Theologian's father was a bishop IIRC) but saying that for the good of the Church, from that point on, only unmarried priests would be consecrated as bishops.

[ClementofRome]

Please, the OP has requested that this thread be put on hold until she receives an answer from her Bishop. Can we all please honor her request? I am not closing the thread as she may have some response tonight.

Please be kind as she searches for the truth.

Forgive me.

[ShiFuBill]

At the mods request I will add no commentary but I want to post these two links for Teke's reference.
Prokov is a web site offering information on sex offenders in churches using the Orthodox name, cannonical or not:
http://www.pokrov.org/Abusers/pstanford.htm

A web site listing non-alligned traditional style churches also has some info.
http://www.ind-movement.org/people_st_sz.html

[ClementofRome]

Thank you ShiFuBill.

[repentant]

I am sure we are the American Orthodox Church, and not the AOCC.
Would a picture of the Patriarch giving his blessing to my bishop be proof enough.......
See (http://stjohnsorthodox.info/gallery2/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=69&g2_GALLERYSID=762ae2381214dc48e03d9cc08bb274d9) pic #0187 at bottom. My bishop is on the left, the Patriarch on the right. The succession of my bishop is confirmed by the Patriarch before the blessing was given. There were many witnesses present, including the governor of this state.


I am sorry, but that picture is not of a blessing.

It could be possible also that the EP had no idea where he was from.


Edit: Just read the mods request. Leaving this up though...

[EricTheRed]

yikes...

[Ilian]

It is fairly obvious these people are vagantes. Anybody associated with them should realize they are not in an Orthodox Church and they are not receiving valid mysteries. In other words this is not about people dressing up and playing church, this is about people leading souls astray. That of course on top of the other issues with people like Alan Stanford (aka "Archbishop Joseph Thaddeus").

[silouanathonite]

Wow..This is disturbing.

[ClementofRome]

I have asked on the previous page that we refrain from further comment until she responds back with her findings.

I am not griping, I am just posting a modhat on this new page in case folks did not see my previous post.

[The Prokeimenon!]

As for the music: if you should decide to go Byzantine at any point I strongly recommend Holy Transfiguration Monastery's translations (we won't get into HTM's own wacky canonical status) and music from St. Anthony's Monastery in Arizona (they are as canonical as they come :)) The St Anthony's music is in Western and Byzantine notation and is also in modern and "Elizabethan" English.

Here's the site: http://www.stanthonysmonastery.org/music/Index.html

Rdr Moses

[Mary of Bethany]

God be with you, Teke, as you struggle through this.

:crosseo:

Mary

[Lotar]

http://www.nmsexoffender.dps.state.nm.us/servlet/fdetailreport1_serv.class?id=2933

[eoe]

WOOF!:doh:

[Ilian]

I have asked on the previous page that we refrain from further comment until she responds back with her findings.

Where I have seen conversations about the standing of vagante groups like this, I have seen the conversation tend to get fairly nasty.

[eoe]

I don't think that there is any need for that here tho....

We all need to support Teke and help her however we can. I think that we would want her to be there for us if we were faced with a crisis like this. I know I would.

[silouanathonite]

May God help Teke through this troubling situation. I would also would love the support & help from everyone here if placed in the similar situation. This shouldn't be a nasty situation. Remember love & compassion is what is needed at this moment.

[rusmeister]

Yes, please don't talk about anything nasty or judgemental. This has got to be hard for her.
May the Lord help and guide you, Teke!

[ShiFuBill]

Its not the first time someone came here thinking they were Orthodox. there was someone from the British Orthodox Church, a vagante group that had joined the monophosites. If I recal once he figured it out he became Orthodox.

[Xpycoctomos]

I don't think that there is any need for that here tho....

We all need to support Teke and help her however we can. I think that we would want her to be there for us if we were faced with a crisis like this. I know I would.
I agree.

Teke, I'm so glad this came up. We are here to support you. PM any of us you like.

I would like to SUGGEST that this forum be cleaned up and locked to respect the requests of Teke at this present time. Teke can then start a new thread updating us or a mod as to what exactly is going on.

However, if nothing comes up in the next week or so, it should be our right and duty to warn others about this information.

John

[ClementofRome]

I agree.

Teke, I'm so glad this came up. We are here to support you. PM any of us you like.

I would like to SUGGEST that this forum be cleaned up and locked to respect the requests of Teke at this present time. Teke can then start a new thread updating us or a mod as to what exactly is going on.

However, if nothing comes up in the next week or so, it should be our right and duty to warn others about this information.

John

Thanks for the suggestion. We will discuss it. More to follow...

[kamikat]

closed for staff review

[kamikat]

This thread is being re-opened at Teke's request. Please be kind and considerate when discussing this topic.

[Xpycoctomos]

Teke,

I just had a thought... can you go to www.orthodoxyinamerica.org (http://www.orthodoxyinamerica.org), find out if there are any Orthodox parishes near you. Even if they are kind of far qaway (like an hour or so), it would be worth it to set up an appointment with a priest there to talk to him about this Church. then they can tell you what they know about this Church.

Perhaps you wouldn't even have to meet with them... just call them. Call a couple. I suggest call those that are closest just becuase they may be more aware of your Church.

John

[Teke]

Is Bishop Aftimios Ofiesh the founder of your Jurisdiction?

OK, let me try to explain this best as I can. It did start with Aftimios.
First let me lay some ground to what happened. When Russia's goverment was controled by communist party, Pat. Tikhon told all the Orthodox to flee. So many Russian Orthodox priest came to America and began churchs. Some later formed into groups such as ROCOR and ROAC, but others did not. Mainly because of distrust of the Russian hiearchy and a desire to have a truly American Orthodox Church with it's own hiearchy. Historically that is how the Orthodox have always done things.

To date this has not been accomplished in the US.

My priest/bishop is not in with the Thaddeus group. I checked that out. Also the reason it's taken me a bit to get back to this. I wanted to verify some things.

Currently with the move by ROCOR in joining the Moscow Pat. , these shall we say, "renegade" Russian churchs, such as mine, are faced with the decision to join with a world recognized org or not.
If not we'll face the persecution of the rest of the church in not being in communion with them, again.

Long story short, my priest won't give in. My deacon has been in contact with ROAC , and of course they are more than willing to assimilate us in. But if the priest doesn't give in, there will be a split.

I'm in the middle of this conflict ......and now I'm so conflicted.:sigh:

[Teke]

Teke,

I just had a thought... can you go to www.orthodoxyinamerica.org (http://www.orthodoxyinamerica.org), find out if there are any Orthodox parishes near you. Even if they are kind of far qaway (like an hour or so), it would be worth it to set up an appointment with a priest there to talk to him about this Church. then they can tell you what they know about this Church.

Perhaps you wouldn't even have to meet with them... just call them. Call a couple. I suggest call those that are closest just becuase they may be more aware of your Church.

John

I recieved a confirmation from Bishop Andrea of ROAC, and they know about the church.
The reality of it is, that all these Russian churchs know about each other and what is going on. It's just us laypersons who don't understand it all.

It's like part of the Russian church is still underground or something. And I'm still not real clear on why if they are Russian affiliated, some don't want to join the Moscow Patriarch.
I may need some inside Russian info on that.

We haven't had any over here lately for me to ask. Last time we did something with the Russian church, we helped with adopted Russian children here. That was last year before hurricane Katrina.

As to the OCA, the Russian churchs will not join them. They have a past I won't get into.

[Ravenonthecross]

I'll say a prayer for you, your parish, and your priest. :prayer:

[Oblio]

You don't want to be part of ROAC either . (ROAC is a different church than ROCA, which is legit)

[Lotar]

OK, let me try to explain this best as I can. It did start with Aftimios.
First let me lay some ground to what happened. When Russia's goverment was controled by communist party, Pat. Tikhon told all the Orthodox to flee. So many Russian Orthodox priest came to America and began churchs. Some later formed into groups such as ROCOR and ROAC, but others did not. Mainly because of distrust of the Russian hiearchy and a desire to have a truly American Orthodox Church with it's own hiearchy. Historically that is how the Orthodox have always done things.

To date this has not been accomplished in the US.

My priest/bishop is not in with the Thaddeus group. I checked that out. Also the reason it's taken me a bit to get back to this. I wanted to verify some things.

Currently with the move by ROCOR in joining the Moscow Pat. , these shall we say, "renegade" Russian churchs, such as mine, are faced with the decision to join with a world recognized org or not.
If not we'll face the persecution of the rest of the church in not being in communion with them, again.

Long story short, my priest won't give in. My deacon has been in contact with ROAC , and of course they are more than willing to assimilate us in. But if the priest doesn't give in, there will be a split.

I'm in the middle of this conflict ......and now I'm so conflicted.:sigh:

Who then is your bishop?

ROAC would never accept your bishop, to put it quite frankly. The broke off from ROCOR because they thought they were too Liberal, so it's quite certain that they would never even entertain the idea of a married bishop. So, that will be an issue for your parish. Even if they do take you in, they are just another small schismatic sect.

Could someone give us some of the background on what Teke has been told?
From what I have been told, ROCOR broke communion with Moscow because St. Tikon told them. Later some of the US bishops normalized relations with Moscow, and this was how the OCA came about. Still later, some of the more extreme bishops broke off from ROCOR to form ROAC, who are now only in communion with only some old calendarist groups.

[Teke]

You don't want to be part of ROAC either . (ROAC is a different church than ROCA, which is legit)

Can you explain why one is legit and the other not.
This is what I don't get about these Russian churchs.

[Lotar]

Can you explain why one is legit and the other not.
This is what I don't get about these Russian churchs.

Just look at who they are in communion with.
If they are in communion with Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Moscow, Greece, Serbia, Albania, or Romania, then they are canonical. Churches outside this communion are schismatic.

[Lotar]

http://www.scoba.us/jurisdictions/

[kamikat]

Here is another website that lists the cannonical hierarchs
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/

[Teke]

Who then is your bishop?

ROAC would never accept your bishop, to put it quite frankly.

That is correct, they will not accept him as a bishop, but as a priest they will.
When the Orthodox finally unite in America, there will be many bishops that will have to do the same.

Even if they do take you in, they are just another small schismatic sect.

They all look as tho in schism to me presently.

Could someone give us some of the background on what Teke has been told?
From what I have been told, ROCOR broke communion with Moscow because St. Tikon told them. Later some of the US bishops normalized relations with Moscow, and this was how the OCA came about. Still later, some of the more extreme bishops broke off from ROCOR to form ROAC, who are now only in communion with only some old calendarist groups.

St Tikhon is primarily the issue in all of this.
As I said, I believe a Russian might be able to explain this all better. Since they are the ones deciding all this.

This is the problem all along with Orthodoxy in America. There are to many different Orthodox groups (Russian, Greek, Antiochian etc), and not enough info explaining to us why.
This would seem to me to be the reason why America can't form it's own hiearchy. Americans can't seem to get past the ethnic problem. If it is our problem.:scratch:

[Ilian]

Could someone give us some of the background on what Teke has been told? I would suggest two articles as starters.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/American_Orthodox_Catholic_Church (http://orthodoxwiki.org/American_Orthodox_Catholic_Church)
http://orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR_and_OCA (http://orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR_and_OCA)

The first gives some good history about the various vagante groups descended from Mr. Ofiesh. The second has a good summary of the situation with the Russian missionary churches in the United States.

Two things to keep in mind:

- The are no valid, legitimate Orthodox churches which have secret, hidden or underground status.
- There are no valid, legitimate Orthodox bishops who are married.

The church in question in this thread is not an Orthodox church. From the standpoint of the church those serving in it would be considered non Orthodox laymen, and “sacraments” performed in it such as Chrismation would not be considered valid.

I think it's worth re-stating this, because I'm seeing the obvious signs popping up:


Signs an "Orthodox" Church is Non-Canonical


Unfortunately, so many churches laying claim to the title "Orthodox" have no connection to the Orthodox Church. Worse, not all are forthcoming about their ecclesiastical status. Aside from the obvious -- glaring flaws in their faith, order, or morals -- here are a few signs that an "Orthodox" church may be falsely so-called (http://aggreen.net/other_orthodox/other.html):

1. It traces its lines of apostolic succession. Those currently in communion with an Orthodox bishop do not wrangle over "endless genealogies." Orthodoxy does not hold to a strictly "tactile" view of apostolic succession, anyway, so presenting such a list does not of itself prove Orthodoxy.
2. It recounts its (usually fractious) jurisdictional history. Independent churches often justify their existence by claiming they broke ranks from an "ecumenist" jurisdiction (or several in succession), or that they were "granted autonomy" at some vague date.
3. Its name juggles the words "Orthodox" and "Catholic" with exotic modifiers. Although the Orthodox Church regards Herself as the Catholic Church, all legitimate jurisdictions in North America go by the shorthand "Orthodox." Those churches calling themselves the "Orthodox Catholic Church" (http://www.orthodoxcatholicchurch.org/) should set off alarm bells. Thus, one finds "Episcopal Orthodox," "Roman Orthodox," (http://eoc.orthodoxanglican.net/)the "Anglican-Catholic Byzantine Church of America" (!), and even the "Charismatic Orthodox," (http://userpages.aug.com/%7Emdkersey/wizzg.html) none of whom are members of the Orthodox Church.
4. It proclaims it is "canonical." Canonical churches don't feel a need to say they are; they just are.
5. It defines canonicity as "following the canons." Which canons? Do they eat in restaurants with Jews? Allow their parishoners to marry actresses? Administer Holy Communion with a spoon? Then they're breaking the canons made at ecumenical councils. The discipline of the Church is administered by bishops -- proper bishops who are part of the Church. Certainly wishing to follow the norms of Orthodoxy is praiseworthy, but it does not make one a member church of the Orthodox communion.
6. It says Orthodoxy means only "fidelity to the Orthodox faith." Similar to the above, these groups will claim to hold the pure Orthodox doctrine. Unlike Protestantism, Orthodoxy is not an ecclesiastically invisible communion of right-thinkers without any outer stricture. Becoming part of the Church means sharing Her faith, communion, and hierarchy. Many Lutheran, Anglican, and "Uniate" priests genuinely believe to "the Orthodox faith" (and God bless them for it!); however, this does not make their parishes part of the Orthodox communion.
7. It considers any discussion of canonicity an "attack." Ironically, this is usually followed by an attack on some action of supposedly "ecumenist, modernist" jurisdictions.
8. It accuses its critics of having a "papal" view of the Church. One often hears the strawman argument: "We don't need to be in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople; he's not the head of Orthodoxy!" Indeed. However, the Church has the right to draw its own boundaries. To be part of the Orthodox Church, one must not only hold the faith but be in communion with one of the autocephalous or autonomous Orthodox Churches in the world (http://oca.org/OCworldindex.asp?SID=2). It need not be Constantinople, nor even a patriarchate.* But it must be one of the churches listed at the link above.
9. It responds with false historical analogies. It will claim ROCOR is not in communion with any patriarchate (although it is in communion with both Serbia and Jerusalem). Or that St. Maximos the Confessor had to flee Eastern bishops (to the Pope of Rome). Or....
10. It claims all canonical status is based on "political considerations." Church politics haunts Orthodoxy as much as any other human ecclesiastical institution, but the Gnomes of Zurich do not run the Church. The EOC had to knock quite a bit...but it made the effort.
11. It claims it is "pursuing relations with Orthodoxy." Some claim to be involved in "ecumenical discussions" with Orthodox that are somehow constantly frustrated. At least such an admission would acknowledge the jurisdiction is outside the Church. If a catechuman wants to be Orthodox, he should simply join the Orthodox Church.
12. It boasts of "frequent concelebrations" with real Orthodox. Unlike whether a given jurisdiction is in communion with any other, this claim is not readily verifiable. This is particularly true when the Orthodox "concelebrant" is unnamed or deceased. But of itself, this proves nothing; Copts innocently concelebrated (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/monasteryicons.aspx) with the Gnostic Orthodox (http://www.monasteryicons.com/), who were still blasphemers. The vagante definition of "concelebration" also seems to differ from the norm; merely being present in the church sometimes qualifies.
13. It claims it is "in communion with" legitimate jurisdictions. Again, real Orthodox don't state they are "in communion with" one another (unless a local schism has recently healed). If asked, some vagantes will say they are "in communion with the patriarchates" or "have never broken communion" with a given Church. By this, they mean their priests will commune Orthodox, but the inverse is not true. Ths is a form of deception.
14. It declares any discussion of canonicity "distracts from the task of proclaiming the Gospel." The "Can't we all just get along" dodge. Any individual may "proclaim the Gospel," but only the Church can genuinely care for the newborn Christian soul -- washing it in baptism, sealing it in the Holy Spirit, nourishing it with the Body and Blood of Christ. If this "Orthodox" organization truly cared for its souls, it would refer them to the Holy Orthodox Church (and follow them into Her loving embrace).

[Teke]

Still later, some of the more extreme bishops broke off from ROCOR to form ROAC, who are now only in communion with only some old calendarist groups. We are guilty of being old calendarists and old traditionalists. See (http://www.roacusa.org/documents.html) ROACs side.
There is much more info at the site in ref. to them and ROCOR and ROCA. The huge mix is obvious.

This is what they say about the Moscow Pat..

AN ANATHEMA AGAINST THE SERGIANISTS


On the Sunday of Orthodoxy, 1999, the Synod of the FROC (now officially called the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church) declared: “A resolution was passed concerning the hierarchs and representatives of the clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate who received their rank through the mediation of the authorities and organs of State Security. In relation to such it was decided that every year on the Sunday of Orthodoxy ANATHEMA should be proclaimed, using the following text: ‘If any bishops, making use of secular bosses [“nachal’nikov], have seized power in the Church of God and enslaved Her, let those and those who aid them and those who communicate with them without paying heed to the reproaches of the Law of God, be ANATHEMA.”

[Lotar]

Teke,

There is information all about this subject. You can check out the book The American Orthodox Church: A History of Its Beginnings, which tells some of the tale.

Up until the communists took power in Russia, the Orthodox Church in America was united under one jurisdiction that was under the Russian Church. After the communists took power, it all fell apart and the different ethnic groups looked back to their countries of origin for support. So, we got the GOARCH, Antiocian, Serbian, ect. The only two legitimate Russian jurisdictions are the OCA and ROCOR, and soon ROCOR will be under the ROC again. St. Tikon did not give everyone permission to go their separate ways and found tons of little independent jurisdictions. What he gave permission for was what became the ROCOR.

Your bishop is not a result of this. Look at it logically:
1. He is not Russian.
2. He wasn't even alive at the time of the Revolution.
3. His "Archdiocese" consists of one parish and a deacon.
So, who ordained him? You need three bishops to ordain a bishop.

Now a days anyone can get themselves "ordained". You just need to have the right friends and/or enough cash.

[Lotar]

BTW, the Soviet Union is dead. Any claims of Sergianism on the part of the MP no longer apply.

[Teke]

Lotar, are you saying this is all lies they are making up.

The ROAC is the representative body of the Higher Church Authority in Russia. The Higher Church Authority was established in Russia in 1994 shortly after the ostensible collapse of the God-hating Soviet regime, under which millions of new Martyrs were made through persecution. Also known since 1990 as the Free Russian Orthodox Church, the ROAC is the voice of genuine Orthodox Christianity in the Russian land.

In 1920, Patriarch Saint Tikhon, himself a martyr and the last free Patriarch of the Russian Church, composed a decree which gave the persecuted Christians a way to organize under a goverment which tried to rob the Church of its existence. Local parishes were to organize around their Bishops, and those Bishops, whenever possible, were to form Higher Church Synods to preserve the Orthodox teaching established by Christ and the Apostles.

It was the task of the Russian Orthodox Bishops outside the Russian borders to preserve the Orthodox teaching and maintain communications with the persecuted Church inside Russia, which was faithfully done. Meanwhile, the Stalinist government in Russia, realizing that it could not destroy the Church, attempted a new tactic: installing agents of the atheist government in monasteries and Bishoprics, starting with the arrest of Metropolitan Sergius in 1927, who capitulated and helped the government create a state-sponsored "Orthodox Church". (For his efforts, Metropolitan Sergius became the first "restored" Patriarch of Moscow.) Meanwhile, the Russian Church went into hiding, as did the first Christians in the catacombs, earning them the name "The Catacomb Church".

In the late 1970's, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia began a process of assisting in the restoration of canonical administration to the underground Russian Churches. By 1994, the Free Russian Orthodox Church, as it had come to be called, was comprised of hundreds of parishes throughout Russia with several Bishops.

This restoration did not come without a downside, however; the Russian Bishops outside Russia, after restoring canonical order in Russia, began dialogue with the state-sponsored Moscow Patriarchate, in direct opposition to her mission to restore the Church in the Russian land. Today, news articles showing the results of this endeavor are well-known. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), once the standard-bearer of Orthodox Christianity, has finally capitulated to the only fully intact remnant of the Soviet regime — the Moscow Patriarchate. In response to this fact, parishes looking for the safety and the stability of the Russian Orthodox Church are coming home to the Autonomous Russian Church, whose faith has remained unchanged and refuses to bow to the godless authorities — or their compromised and broken agent, the state-subsidized Moscow Patriarchate.

In 2000, the Free and self-governing Russian Orthodox Church, under the capable leadership of Metropolitan VALENTINE of Suzdal and Vladimir, made overtures to traditional Orthodox Christians throughout the world to reunite in God-loving communion with particular pastoral concern for North America, which was a Russian mission territory before the Revolution. Since then the Church has been primarily focused on missionary efforts.

Thus, over 80 years after the most devastating attempt to destroy the Church since the first centuries of Christianity, the ROAC continues the mission established by Christ and given to His Holy Apostles: Go and preach the Gospel to all nations, Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
http://www.roacusa.org/

[choirfiend]

Yes. What could you expect from a schismatic group but lies and false claims about preserving "true" Orthodoxy, while in fact being no part of the Orthodox Church on the global scale.


Here we are, from every conceivable Orthodox jurisdiction in Amerca, telling you that if you visited our church, you would not be allowed to receive communion. And that most likely, we would never visit your church b/c it is not Orthodox. How likely is it that this whole bunch of strangers, who have welcomed you and fellowshipped with you for months(?), should now decide to all lie to you in a great conspiracy? What possible purpose could we have?

[Teke]

I am not accusing anyone of lying. I asked if you believe they are lying. If you believe they are. OK. Tho you haven't shown how or why they are or would be.

[kamikat]

The why is relatively easy. As with any splinter group, they set themselve apart because they believe they are more whatever (in this case the whatever is Orthodox) than the others. They believe just talking with other, non-Orthodox, Christians is enough to make the other Orthodox bishops no longer Orthodox. They believe that using the new calendar is enough to make the other Orthodox bishops no longer Orthodox. If you go to the forum dedicated to these groups, they call all the bishops of SCOBA heretics. These little churches set themselves up as the last bastion of Orthodoxy in the world and no one else besides they are Orthodox. These groups are no different from the "Catholic" SSPX, Boston Church of Christ and any other church that says they are the only real Christians in the world.

[choirfiend]

Ok. For that, you will have to do some more reading. The history can be confusing, especially when the schismatics teach something that directly contreadicts what everyone else is saying.


The proof is in the pudding, as they say. Call any Orthodox priest at any church you can find in the yellow pages. Look any random church up at the parish listings at OrthodoxyinAmerica.net and give them a call. Ask the priest at each one about your organization. Ask them if it is Orthodox. Ask them if you would be welcomed to communion, or if he could commune at your church. The answer will come back from all of the Orthodox Churches: no, no, no.

The Orthodox Church is united in doctrine AND sacramentally. We share a common cup. And ALL of the Orthodox churches are listed
here
http://www.balamand.edu.lb/theology/links.htm

Even so---your church isnt part of ROAC.

[Teke]

Ok. For that, you will have to do some more reading. The history can be confusing, especially when the schismatics teach something that directly contreadicts what everyone else is saying.


The proof is in the pudding, as they say. Call any Orthodox priest at any church you can find in the yellow pages. Look any random church up at the parish listings at OrthodoxyinAmerica.net and give them a call. Ask the priest at each one about your organization. Ask them if it is Orthodox. Ask them if you would be welcomed to communion, or if he could commune at your church. The answer will come back from all of the Orthodox Churches: no, no, no.

The Orthodox Church is united in doctrine AND sacramentally. We share a common cup. And ALL of the Orthodox churches are listed
here
http://www.balamand.edu.lb/theology/links.htm

Even so---your church isnt part of ROAC.

More than myself. Others at my church have been to other Orthodox churchs when traveling, and have been both given communion and denied. So asking around is the same. Not all agree or disagree. Whether we are ROAC or something else doesn't matter. Doctrine and sacraments do.
I find it odd that you could answer such a question as the clergy is to answer.

[Teke]

The why is relatively easy. As with any splinter group, they set themselve apart because they believe they are more whatever (in this case the whatever is Orthodox) than the others. They believe just talking with other, non-Orthodox, Christians is enough to make the other Orthodox bishops no longer Orthodox. They believe that using the new calendar is enough to make the other Orthodox bishops no longer Orthodox. If you go to the forum dedicated to these groups, they call all the bishops of SCOBA heretics. These little churches set themselves up as the last bastion of Orthodoxy in the world and no one else besides they are Orthodox. These groups are no different from the "Catholic" SSPX, Boston Church of Christ and any other church that says they are the only real Christians in the world.

I don't see where they or myself or claiming to be the only real christians in the world. I do agree with them in that the Church shouldn't be part of a political goverment in any way. Even before I was Orthodox I believed that way. It's one of the things I hated about Protestantism and the other evangelical churchs, they sold out to the goverment.

I'd rather be a poor renegade Orthodox, meek and humble in that, than a puffed up pious fool.

[TexasCatholic]

This is one of those times I'm glad that I agree with the Papacy. It's simple to ask a) in communion with Rome or b) NOT in communion with Rome. There's no gray areas and nobody can make it up, since it's all quite official.

God bless you Teke in your situation. I hope that your parish resolves itself. Even as a Catholic (or perhaps especially as a Catholic), I recognize the need for communion to mean something more than aligned beliefs, but actual unity - not splinters.

Splinters are no longer connected to the tree. Your brethren are giving you good advice, as best as I can tell. Catholic/Orthodox split aside, the Orthodox want to get you back on the "tree"... not on a lone splinter, floating out there. Politics belong in government, not faith.

Peace Be With You,

Michael

[Matrona]

This is one of those times I'm glad that I agree with the Papacy.

Stick around TAW for awhile. You might find out why a little Byzantine intrigue is preferable to the Pope's tiara. ;)

It's simple to ask a) in communion with Rome or b) NOT in communion with Rome. There's no gray areas and nobody can make it up, since it's all quite official.

Pretty easy to circumvent that security measure by lying. :)

[Lotar]

I don't see where they or myself or claiming to be the only real christians in the world. I do agree with them in that the Church shouldn't be part of a political goverment in any way. Even before I was Orthodox I believed that way. It's one of the things I hated about Protestantism and the other evangelical churchs, they sold out to the goverment.

I'd rather be a poor renegade Orthodox, meek and humble in that, than a puffed up pious fool.

There are a couple different types:
-The "we are the only real Orthodox left in the world" type. Which were usually started by actual schismatic priests and bishops. Pretty much following along in the same vein as the Old Believers.
-The "hey, I'd sure like to be Orthodox, but forget converting, I'll just make myself a bishop" type. Which are usually started by people who never were Orthodox to begin with, and have beliefs ranging from pretty Orthodox to wacky. These are usually completely opposite the first type in that they consider just about everybody to be Orthodox (many times they hold some form of the Anglican branch theory).

Yours is type two.

The Orthodox Church has almost always dealt directly with, and cooperated with, governments. If that was Sergianism, then the Orthodox Church ceased to exist in the fouth century.

If you read ROCOR's side of the story, you will see a lot of blanks filled in and half truths revealed in the account you posted from the ROAC website.

[ufonium2]

Teke,

My home church used to be part of a group that called itself Orthodox, but wasn't. For them, this pseudo-Orthodox phase was necessary because they were transitioning, as a group, from belonging to a gnostic cult to joining the OCA, which was a huge adjustment. It doesn't seem that your parish is moving towards canonical Orthodoxy, though, and that worries me.

I'm telling you this because I want you to know that I saw all of this stuff, the polite but not meaningful interactions with real Orthodox groups, the shaky succession, even the bishop with a sex crimes history, in the history of my home church.

As for the Russian situation, it isn't nearly as complicated as your bishop needs you to believe it is. Moscow Patriarchate, the OCA, and ROCOR/ROCA are the only real Russian Orthodox churches. ROAC or any other splinter group is not valid, any more than Benny Hinn is valid because he apostatized from a legitimate Orthodox communion. It just doesn't work that way.

[kamikat]

This is one of those times I'm glad that I agree with the Papacy. It's simple to ask a) in communion with Rome or b) NOT in communion with Rome. There's no gray areas and nobody can make it up, since it's all quite official.

Michael

Oh, yeah, there are grey areas in the Catholic communion. Just as with this situation, it involves unscrupulous leaders misleading the laity. I used to attend a TLM church that claimed it was in communion. For a while, they even advertized in the local newspaper's religion section with the other churches and claimed it in their newspaper ads. I didn't know it was SSPX until I found a Catholic forum and mentioned the name of the church. At the time, even though I was a cradle Catholic, I had never heard of SSPX. Those kind people took the time to tell me about my church. And again, like this situation, the priest made it all seem more confusing than it was. The grey areas are caused by sinful men doing sinful things to people who trust them because they appear to be men of God. God does not cause this kind of confusion.

[RobNJ]

I'm sorry, but when you come right down to it, I can't see a vagante "Orthodox" group, as being any better than Protestants with a MUCH better liturgy & snazzier outfitted clergy

[ShiFuBill]

Teke,
Cannonicity and all the rest aside I think you should consider just who your bishop is. Please look at the media links on the web site I am linking:
http://www.ind-movement.org/people_st_sz.html (http://www.ind-movement.org/people_st_sz.html)
Bishop Joseph Thaddeus was imprisioned for sexual molestation of two boys. There were charges of drug use and fraudulant fundraising. Any of these may be untrue as he was in a community that obviously didn't appreciate him being there. However the most interesting information was that his criminal record was included on the warrent for his arrest. He had a record of sexual abuse and fraud. Someone here earlier listed a web site where he is listed as a sexual offender in New Mexico.
Whether or not you choose a non-cannonical church, I think you should warn the people in your church about this person, especially anyone who has children.
These non-cannonical churches are a hunting ground for sexual preditors. The priests/bishops are responsible to no one. This Bishop Joseph Thaddeus has carried his American Orthodox Church from state to state. This is a potentially dangerous situation.


PS: Being old calandarist is not a crime, many cannonical churches are. There is a difference between celebrating Christmas 13 days later and breaking communion with those who don't.

[ShiFuBill]

About cannonicity:
Teke, you keep saying that it is confusing for the laity, but really it is not confusing for a legitimate church. For example, I belong to the Orthodox Church of Taiwan. We belong to the Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and All Southeast Asia. Our Metroplitan is in the spiritual jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. The Orthodox Church of Taiwan is in communion with the whole body of the Orthodox Church. As such, we are part of the body of Christ. It is only in communion with the whole church that we are part of the body of Christ. If, let's say, the Chinese communists took direct political control of Hong Kong and to save himself our bishop began saying or doing things we could not support (such as denying the divinity of Christ), our church would have the obligation to break with him. However, we would then have to come under another bishop, maybe the Archbishop of Japan since it's closest. We would then remain in the Orthodox Church.(BTW, none of this would ever, ever happen)
This is somewhat the situation with ROCOR, they felt it nessesary to break with Moscow, but they remained in communion with Jerusalem and Serbia, and they never intended to be permanantly out of communion with everyone else.
But look at what your bishop is telling you. He says there is some mysterious "underground" connection to other churches. He makes it all difficult to understand and gives a lot of confusing information. He claims to be in contact with ROAC, who are also in communion with no one else. He gives you information (or posts it on a web site) that criticizes chruches for events that happened decades ago. I study history, and the Church has never opperated like this. A church is in communion, or not.
Orthodoxy is flourishing throughout the world. The Church is coming out of troubled times but it has survived and is renewing itself, based on our ancient traditions. There are some, however, who try to continue the discord of the past for their own self-intrested purposes. If he had a problem with any of the Russian-heritage chruches, why not join another? Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Serbia, Romania. All of these are in America as well, the first two were never controversial. I'll tell you why vagante groups won't, being in communion also places one under athority. Going alone means you do what you want. And a sexual preditor would not likely be admited as a priest, or last long if he was.
Wouldn't it be much better to know, to really know, that you are a part of the whole body of Christ? To know that when you take communion, you are mystically joining together with every Orthodox Christian everywhere in the world, with the angels and all the saints, and not just participating with a little group that has cut itself off. Because communion is what it is to be Orthodox.

[Akathist]

Wouldn't it be much better to know, to really know, that you are a part of the whole body of Christ? To know that when you take communion, you are mystically joining together with every Orthodox Christian everywhere in the world, with the angels and all the saints, and not just participating with a little group that has cut itself off. Because communion is what it is to be Orthodox.

Wow, that is beautifully said and worth highlighting.

Thank you!

[Teke]

There are a couple different types:
-The "we are the only real Orthodox left in the world" type. Which were usually started by actual schismatic priests and bishops. Pretty much following along in the same vein as the Old Believers.
-The "hey, I'd sure like to be Orthodox, but forget converting, I'll just make myself a bishop" type. Which are usually started by people who never were Orthodox to begin with, and have beliefs ranging from pretty Orthodox to wacky. These are usually completely opposite the first type in that they consider just about everybody to be Orthodox (many times they hold some form of the Anglican branch theory).

Yours is type two.

The Orthodox Church has almost always dealt directly with, and cooperated with, governments. If that was Sergianism, then the Orthodox Church ceased to exist in the fouth century.

If you read ROCOR's side of the story, you will see a lot of blanks filled in and half truths revealed in the account you posted from the ROAC website.

Which type is OCA with ROCOR Lotar? If you filled in the blanks from Met. Platon, then you know that ROCOR considers OCA as schismatic also, because of Platons not staying with ROCOR. And the OCA forming after that departure.

And could you point out specifically, at least one, where ROCOR sees ROAC as uncannonical, other than the fact they are not joined with ROCOR.

[choirfiend]

They are not joined with ANYONE. Personal politics aside---one can simply NOT leave the Church, create their own organization, and declare themselves to be Orthodox any more than jimbob down the street can set up an Orthodox Church in his garage and start holding services. It is the same issue on a larger scale. Apostolic succession is two-fold: holding to the Apostolic Faith (which includes being united in the Eucharist) and being ordained by apostolic bishops. Where one is severed, the sucession no longer exists. I'm not saying there's one special bishop you need to be in communion with. I'm saying you need to be in communion with the Church as a whole. Being in communion is PART of being canonical.

If anyone was received at another ORTHODOX church's Eucharist, I'm quite certain it was only because the priest did not know what church the person belonged to. The only Orthodox Churches are listed in the links already given so many times. Everyone else is just an imposter.

[choirfiend]

The OCA is neither type. They were under Russia, and now have been granted self-rule BY Russia. They are fully in communion with all other Orthodox Churches in the entire world.

[Teke]

Teke,

My home church used to be part of a group that called itself Orthodox, but wasn't. For them, this pseudo-Orthodox phase was necessary because they were transitioning, as a group, from belonging to a gnostic cult to joining the OCA, which was a huge adjustment. It doesn't seem that your parish is moving towards canonical Orthodoxy, though, and that worries me.

I'm telling you this because I want you to know that I saw all of this stuff, the polite but not meaningful interactions with real Orthodox groups, the shaky succession, even the bishop with a sex crimes history, in the history of my home church.

As for the Russian situation, it isn't nearly as complicated as your bishop needs you to believe it is. Moscow Patriarchate, the OCA, and ROCOR/ROCA are the only real Russian Orthodox churches. ROAC or any other splinter group is not valid, any more than Benny Hinn is valid because he apostatized from a legitimate Orthodox communion. It just doesn't work that way.

Well, what does one do. They will not join the OCA since it has the same colorful background as they presently are in. And from what I have seen personally in OCA churchs, our church would consider not traditional. And that is just little t traditions, who knows about the big T ones.

[ufonium2]

Well, what does one do. They will not join the OCA since it has the same colorful background as they presently are in. And from what I have seen personally in OCA churchs, our church would consider not traditional. And that is just little t traditions, who knows about the big T ones.

I'm not sure what you're saying. How is the OCA's background "colorful"? The OCA was the "Metropolia," the Russian Orthodox Church's American branch. Then Moscow granted them autocephaly. That's all there is to it. No rogue bishops, no schism, no splinter. The OCA never broke communion with anyone. How that is at all similar to what you're describing is beyond me.

[choirfiend]

Little t traditions are cultural and personal traditions. Big T Tradition is the Faith. And the OCA has the Faith---evidenced by the fact that everyone is in communion with them.

There are lots of red herrings being brought up now--that have nothing to do with Orthodox Church and being in communion with it.


The American Orthoxox Church is part of NO Orthodox Church, is not recognized by any Orthodox Church, and is out of communion with EVERY Orthodox Church in the world. I'm sorry that you were introduced to the word "Orthodox" through a non-Orthodox group--but this must be dealt with. Where are the real Orthodox churches in your area? You need to contact an actual parish.

[kamikat]

And could you point out specifically, at least one, where ROCOR sees ROAC as uncannonical, other than the fact they are not joined with ROCOR.

It's not just that they are not in communion with ROCOR, they're not in communion with anyone else. Are they in communion with the Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Patriarchate of Antioch, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem? Are they in communion with the churches of Georgia, Serbia, Greece, Albania, Poland, Check Republic, Slovakia, Finland, Japan, Ukraine? Have you asked your bishop if your church is in communion with any of these churches? If his answer is no, have you asked why they are not in communion with these churches? It's already been said before that to be Orthodox is to be in communion with The Body of Christ. The churches listed above are all part of The Body of Christ. Do you feel it's not important to be in communion with all the other Orthodox Christians throughout the world?

[gzt]

The Metropolia had, as it were, irregular status with relation to Moscow in several of the decades prior to the granting of autocephaly.

[kamikat]

Well, what does one do. They will not join the OCA since it has the same colorful background as they presently are in. And from what I have seen personally in OCA churchs, our church would consider not traditional. And that is just little t traditions, who knows about the big T ones.

You don't need to join an OCA church. You can go to a Greek church or an Antiochian church. It doesn't matter as long as the church is Orthodox. Your church is not Orthodox. I did a parish locator search, based on the zipcode of the church you currently attend. Unfortunately, there aren't any very close to that church, but if you're willing to drive, there are several in your state. The closest one to the church you're going to now is St Basil Antiochian Church in Metairie. This is based on the address listed on the website you gave us. It's not good to publish personal info here, so if you think you can something closer to you, try the parish locator with your own zip code
http://orthodoxyinamerica.com/sr2_0_0/locator.php

[rusmeister]

Don't know as my voice is worth much, Teke, but these folks are right. Your situation sucks and I suppose I'm glad it's not me - forgive me for even that!

Try bringing your concerns to a priest from a canonical church nearest you. That surely would not be offensive.

It's easy to feel like you're personally under siege. Don't give in to those feelings! Demand the truth!

God bless you!

[ShiFuBill]

I think some of us may be not be understanding each other very well, so Teke, let me ask you a question:

what does Orthodoxy mean to you? In your mind what does it mean to be Orthodox?

- I think it you tell us that we could better understand where you are coming from.

[Teke]

I'm not sure what you're saying. How is the OCA's background "colorful"? The OCA was the "Metropolia," the Russian Orthodox Church's American branch. Then Moscow granted them autocephaly. That's all there is to it. No rogue bishops, no schism, no splinter. The OCA never broke communion with anyone. How that is at all similar to what you're describing is beyond me.

Seems the point is being missed. Can you explain why when they were granted autocephaly, the other churchs didn't join with them. Why wouldn't ROCOR then either go home or join OCA? Why aren't the other Orthodox in America not joined with OCA?

These are the questions not being answered.

[a_ntv]

My church is a small American Orthodox church. My bishop (who is married) and I are in agreement that Orthodoxy must be presented in an American way for Americans to be able to fully understand Orthodoxy. .....
Just please do not turn this thread into a debate about who is right and wrong. I know some cradle Orthodox do not agree with our synods decisions. (for those interested, here is the 2005 declaration of the synod http://www.apostle1.com/statement_and_declaration_2005_holy_synod.htm)

Dear Teke,

I looked at the site of the "American Orthodox Church" you posted with a catholic eye.

It looks like to be a Auhocephalos Church, a Church separated by the main Churches, but that still keeps sacraments and apostolic succession.

There are lots of these churches, many of them separated from the Catholic Church. It is difficoult to define the causes, but usully in these churches yuo can find (differently from the Catholic Church):
- permission marriage for priests and bishops
- easy access to deacon/priest/bishop ordination

Looking into such a site, it looks like that the "American Orthodox Church" is mainly a church of former catholics: see ad instance the second name: "orhodox catholic christianity", or looking at the western liturgy, or at monks orders, like Orthodox Order of Friars Minor or Benedectine.

From a catholic point of view, the ordination of this church bishops is probably valid, so you have a true Eucharist and a true sacraments.

And the Holy Spirit surely works also by this Church.

But personally I dont like these separate Churches, because obbedience shall be in the first place in the attidude of any bishop.

On the other side I've always seen you really full of correct doctrine here on CF: and that is the first fruit of the True Eucharist you have.:)

[Anhelyna]

dear a_ntv

I fear you are now muddying the waters for Teke.

We Eastern Catholics do not consider the 'American Orthodox Church ' to be canonical - it's neither a Catholic Church or an Orthodox one by our understanding.

Teke - I understand you are confused and bewildered by all this - you are in my prayers

[Matrona]

a_ntv,

Your post outlines a totally erroneous perception of this "American Orthodox Church" sect and of the (actual) Orthodox Church.

Your interpretation of autocephaly is completely wrong. This "American Orthodox Church" sect is schismatic and does not maintain the same beliefs as legitimate Orthodox. Autocephalous Orthodox churches NEVER schism from each other--autocephaly is a matter of administrative/hierarchical independence while sharing communion and the common Orthodox Faith, neither of which is shared with legitimate Orthodox by this sect.

You know how apostolic succession and sacramental validity are interpreted by Roman Catholics, but it is NOT the same for Orthodox; we have a very different view of how apostolic succession and sacramental validity are transmitted and maintained. What you wrote in your post does not reflect the Orthodox understanding of either subject in any way, shape, or form.

Orthodox do not have "Orders," whether of Benedictines or of Friars Minor, but if we did they would be under the ROCOR or Antiochians (legitimate Orthodox who take Western Rite Orthodox under their omophorions); there is no legitimate Orthodox autocephalous Western Rite church anywhere in the world.

This "American Orthodox Church" has no legitimacy whatsoever among Orthodox. Kindly check your information before attempting to advise others on matters of the Orthodox faith.

[MariaRegina]

Dear Teke,

I looked at the site of the "American Orthodox Church" you posted with a catholic eye.

It looks like to be a Auhocephalos Church, a Church separated by the main Churches, but that still keeps sacraments and apostolic succession.

There are lots of these churches, many of them separated from the Catholic Church. It is difficoult to define the causes, but usully in these churches yuo can find (differently from the Catholic Church):
- permission marriage for priests and bishops
- easy access to deacon/priest/bishop ordination

Looking into such a site, it looks like that the "American Orthodox Church" is mainly a church of former catholics: see ad instance the second name: "orhodox catholic christianity", or looking at the western liturgy, or at monks orders, like Orthodox Order of Friars Minor or Benedectine.

From a catholic point of view, the ordination of this church bishops is probably valid, so you have a true Eucharist and a true sacraments.

And the Holy Spirit surely works also by this Church.

But personally I dont like these separate Churches, because obbedience shall be in the first place in the attidude of any bishop.

On the other side I've always seen you really full of correct doctrine here on CF: and that is the first fruit of the True Eucharist you have.:)

As you mentioned, the major flaw with bishops who are not accountable with other bishops are the innovative teachings that will follow:

Married Bishops
Gay Priests
Unholy Unions
Women Priests
Women Bishops
Gay Bishops
New Liturgies

and it can go downhill very rapidly.


On the other hand :idea:

If you talk with some of the other folks you know, and even your priest,
then maybe you guys could become a mission or a new parish of the OCA or one of the other SCOBA affiliated churches here in the USA.

Hopefully the whole group will move in this direction, if not, then ask around, and get 10 to 25 others to join with you in contacting a SCOBA bishop and starting your own mission.

[a_ntv]

a_ntv,

Your post outlines a totally erroneous perception of this "American Orthodox Church" sect and of the (actual) Orthodox Church.
...

You are right about Orthodoxy, and I know it perfectly.

That is the reason why in my post I wrote two times "from a catholic point of view".

And this Church looks like to have at least a 1/3 of roman catholic heritage. that is why I posted.

I cannot and I dont want to give any judice between denominations that call themself 'Orthodox'.

[TexasCatholic]

Oh, yeah, there are grey areas in the Catholic communion. Just as with this situation, it involves unscrupulous leaders misleading the laity. I used to attend a TLM church that claimed it was in communion. For a while, they even advertized in the local newspaper's religion section with the other churches and claimed it in their newspaper ads. I didn't know it was SSPX until I found a Catholic forum and mentioned the name of the church. At the time, even though I was a cradle Catholic, I had never heard of SSPX. Those kind people took the time to tell me about my church. And again, like this situation, the priest made it all seem more confusing than it was. The grey areas are caused by sinful men doing sinful things to people who trust them because they appear to be men of God. God does not cause this kind of confusion.

True, this happens sometimes. And it is definitely a result of unscrupulous leaders, who (IMO) take on the full burden for the sin of leading their flock astray. However, if an informed Catholic wants to know if their parish is legit, simply call the office of the local Diocese/Archdiocese. Or, in modern times in developed nations, simply go to the Archdiocesan website and look for your parish. Or go to http://www.masstimes.org -- if it's not listed there, it's probably not a legit Roman Rite parish, either. I have an SSPX chapel right down the road from me, and before I was Catholic, my girlfriend (now wife) had me take her there for mass... she realized 10 minutes into it that it wasn't a real Catholic church, and we left.

I don't want to throw the topic off though, and I cannot debate here, so back on the Eastern Orthodoxy -- wouldn't this be made easier if there really was an Orthodox Church specifically for America as opposed to the ethnic entities? Is 300 million people not significant enough for its own unique church? What authority within Orthodoxy decides this?

-Michael

[Xpycoctomos]

True, this happens sometimes. And it is definitely a result of unscrupulous leaders, who (IMO) take on the full burden for the sin of leading their flock astray. However, if an informed Catholic wants to know if their parish is legit, simply call the office of the local Diocese/Archdiocese. Or, in modern times in developed nations, simply go to the Archdiocesan website and look for your parish. Or go to http://www.masstimes.org -- if it's not listed there, it's probably not a legit Roman Rite parish, either. I have an SSPX chapel right down the road from me, and before I was Catholic, my girlfriend (now wife) had me take her there for mass... she realized 10 minutes into it that it wasn't a real Catholic church, and we left.

Honestly, it really really really isn't that difficult to figure out if an Orthodox Church is legit or not. You just go in, find a pamphlet that says what there jurisdiction is and see who they are in communion with.

You might say, well, how is she supposed to know to check about all of this? Why should she have ever assumed there was anything wrong with her church's canonicity? Good question...

But imagine if Teke had decided to be Catholic and went to the Catholic parish Kamikat spoke of. How would she have know there was anything wrong with that other than stumbling upon the info while talking to Catholics as Kamikat did (and as Teke is now doing, but with Orthodox)? The situation is just as bewildering as the one Kamikat presents. The only thing that makes the Catholic situation easier is that more people are aware fo the Catholic Churchin the West (even non-catholics) and so more people are going to be aware of the fact that they need to be under the pope. But imagine a Chinese person going to a hidden Christian parish in China that had the title Catholic in it. As far as they are concerned, they are as Catholic as you are even if the priest is nothing more than an ordained Baptist minister.

In America the Orthodoxo Church has a huge hurdle to overcome and that is- ignorance. Not an ignorance I can blame on anyone (I mean, to a lot of people Orthodox are nothinng more than strict jewish people), but all the same, it's ignorance. And there are wolves that feed off of this ignorance. WHat happened to peop,le like Teke could have happened to me... fortunately it didn't.

However, if one is a lover of God's CHurch, as Teke is, they are going to learn more about the Churcha nd will stumble upon information as God wills. I think God has led Teke here and I pray that His will will be done in her life (and perhaps in the life of those at her current parish).

I don't want to throw the topic off though, and I cannot debate here, so back on the Eastern Orthodoxy -- wouldn't this be made easier if there really was an Orthodox Church specifically for America as opposed to the ethnic entities? Is 300 million people not significant enough for its own unique church? What authority within Orthodoxy decides this?

-Michael

This is another thread. The fact is that it is VERY complicated and putting all American Orthodox under one bishop in the US (while nice and neat) would create a LOT of problems and disenfranchise a lot of cradle Orthodox unnecessarily, similarly to how the Catholic Church poorly dealt with making a sweeping change to the Novus Ordus. I think the POst VII Catholic CHurhc would do so differently looking back (but hindsight is 20/20).

However, we are moving toward this on a lay level and that's ;where it needs to start. The BIshops can do what they want, but if the lay people aren't on board, the change purposed will only cause more harm than good. It will happen, I have no doubt. Just not soon.

John

[Teke]

Dear Teke,

I looked at the site of the "American Orthodox Church" you posted with a catholic eye.

It looks like to be a Auhocephalos Church, a Church separated by the main Churches, but that still keeps sacraments and apostolic succession.

There are lots of these churches, many of them separated from the Catholic Church. It is difficoult to define the causes, but usully in these churches yuo can find (differently from the Catholic Church):
- permission marriage for priests and bishops
- easy access to deacon/priest/bishop ordination

Looking into such a site, it looks like that the "American Orthodox Church" is mainly a church of former catholics: see ad instance the second name: "orhodox catholic christianity", or looking at the western liturgy, or at monks orders, like Orthodox Order of Friars Minor or Benedectine.

From a catholic point of view, the ordination of this church bishops is probably valid, so you have a true Eucharist and a true sacraments.

And the Holy Spirit surely works also by this Church.

But personally I dont like these separate Churches, because obbedience shall be in the first place in the attidude of any bishop.

On the other side I've always seen you really full of correct doctrine here on CF: and that is the first fruit of the True Eucharist you have.:)

Thank you for the kind post friend.

I can tell you that my bishop/priest had all his papers in order from the Roman church before he became Orthodox. I have not seen his succession from ordination into Orthodoxy as yet. But I am checking on that.
I am careful about this, as this man is definitely a devoted clergyman and has been his whole life. The church did not just spring up over night and has many years of this mans life in it, at his expense.

And because I know these things about this person, I can not speak without just cause against him or his work, as I feel that would be a sin. I could likely count on one hand how many men of God I have seen and known of this sort.

I'm also glad to see you recognize my own dedication to the faith from my studies. Others of like, know that someone like myself have traveled the hard road with other churchs before, always knowing that God has led them wherever they find He has brought them. So it will not be the first time, tho it may be a last time for me, as my life here grows shorter with each day.
However God will give me the strength and wisdom to guide me thru this also.

My bishop and I have a good relationship. He knows my studies and we share a love and vision for the Church. I plan on speaking with him further on this matter and considering what he says. If I disagree with him, I will certainly not refute his view unless I am able to present a better one. Presently I see no other alternatives.

As you said, " obbedience shall be in the first place in the attidude of any bishop". I can tell you that this bishop is very gracious, loving, merciful and giving. So if he is our role model of obedience in his attitude, that is what it is.

My deacon seems to be leaning toward a decision himself, in another direction from the bishop, and he will also hear from me on this matter further as we continue to discuss it. As I am not agreeing with his decision presently, but am open to hearing more from him.



God have mercy on us as we continue.

[ClementofRome]

And, as they say...she gets the final word.

Thread closed.