Met. Jonah of the OCA on American jurisdictional unity

[Anastasis777]

The name of the OCA is not The Orthodox Church of the United States, but rather the Orthodox Church of America. America includes the United States, Canada and Mexico. Thus there are no churches in the OCA that are in countries foreign to America. And last I checked Canada was just given another OCA bishop, so it is not like the OCA treats its Canadian parishes as second class.

Don't know if anybody mentioned this, but there are OCA parishes in Australia (though ROCOR is trying to take back the one closest to me to make into a mission parish, as far as I can tell).

 

[ThePilgrim]

I don't mean this to be derogatory against anyone, but rather mean this as an honest question that I hadn't thought about until a few weeks ago...

The OCA claims to be the canonical Church in this part of the world because they were the first to establish a parish in what became the United States...

1) Since it wasn't the United States, but Russia, at the time, how does that give them a canonical claim to the entire United States?

2) Since, by the time Alaska joined the Union, there were already existing Orthodox parishes in the United States, what makes the canonical claim of those groups more or less valid than that of the OCA?

3) Even if the parishes in Russian Alaska give the OCA claim to the United States, how do they give the OCA claim to Canada or Mexico? On what basis does the OCA claim to cover all of North American as its canonical territory?

These questions aren't meant to be inflammatory, but are asked honestly in the spirit of informing myself better. I think that, in order to work through this thorny issue, it's good to ask questions and be honest with the history.

Grace and peace,
Sbn John

 

[Mikeb85]

1) Since it wasn't the United States, but Russia, at the time, how does that give them a canonical claim to the entire United States?

It doesn't, necessarily, however... (see #2)

2) Since, by the time Alaska joined the Union, there were already existing Orthodox parishes in the United States, what makes the canonical claim of those groups more or less valid than that of the OCA?

At one point in time (the decades prior to the Russian revolution), all the Orthodox parishes in the USA were under the Russian Orthodox Church. The ROC was the first to have a diocese in the United States, at that point in time there was no other hierarchy in the US. This is where the claim of the Russian Church/OCA is stronger than anyone else's.

3) Even if the parishes in Russian Alaska give the OCA claim to the United States, how do they give the OCA claim to Canada or Mexico? On what basis does the OCA claim to cover all of North American as its canonical territory?

It doesn't, however due to geography, it makes sense to have a single North American church.

 

[E.C.]

That article does very little to make me have anything more than contempt for the EP. Sounds to me that the current and past EPs are more intent on prerserving his territorial rule than on preserving the Orthodox way of life. Thank God the MP has the backbone and grace to stand up to the EP!

Trust me, that was NOT the aim. I hoped that in mentioning this article the strange position of the EP could have a little more light shed onto it.

St. John Maximovitch, pray for us!

Wise words that need repeating.

 

[Michael G]

I don't mean this to be derogatory against anyone, but rather mean this as an honest question that I hadn't thought about until a few weeks ago...

The OCA claims to be the canonical Church in this part of the world because they were the first to establish a parish in what became the United States...

1) Since it wasn't the United States, but Russia, at the time, how does that give them a canonical claim to the entire United States?

2) Since, by the time Alaska joined the Union, there were already existing Orthodox parishes in the United States, what makes the canonical claim of those groups more or less valid than that of the OCA?

3) Even if the parishes in Russian Alaska give the OCA claim to the United States, how do they give the OCA claim to Canada or Mexico? On what basis does the OCA claim to cover all of North American as its canonical territory?

These questions aren't meant to be inflammatory, but are asked honestly in the spirit of informing myself better. I think that, in order to work through this thorny issue, it's good to ask questions and be honest with the history.

Grace and peace,
Sbn John

Pilgrim, I already answered question #3 a bunch of posts back. The name of the OCA is not the "Orthodox Church of the United States of America" but rather the "Orthodox Church of America." America includes North and South America. Last I checked Mexico and Canada are part of North America. This answer also answers #1 and 2 as well because it has nothing to do with the political government of the USA, and thus saying the Russian Church didn't have any territorial claim because by the time Alaska enterred the union there were other Churches here is a straw argument and has no real strength to it.

 

[Michael G]

Trust me, that was NOT the aim. I hoped that in mentioning this article the strange position of the EP could have a little more light shed onto it.


Wise words that need repeating.

E.C. the article by the saint shed alot of light on the E.P. I am sorry he is in the position he is in with the Turks. Perhaps he should value his faith more than his life and be willing to chance his life a little to speak out for Orthodoxy against the Turks. I still want nothing to do with him attempting to govern my Church. Leave the Church in North America alone!

 

[ThePilgrim]

But that doesn't really answer the question, because the name "Orthodox Church in America" was only given later, not at the time. That title is the assertion to canonical authority over all of North America... What I'm asking is, what is the basis of that assertion?

Like I say, I'm not disagreeing with the assertion and saying it's not true, but I'm just trying to understand the canonical basis of it, because I was asked these questions and honestly don't know the answer to them myself.

How did establishing parishes within the bounds of the Russian empire give the Russian church jurisdiction over all North America?

By the time Alaska became part of the United States, there were already Orthodox parishes in the continental United States that were never under the Russian mission. Should they have become under the Russian mission? If so, on what canonical basis?

And the Russians weren't the first to establish parishes in Mexico, for example. What is the basis of the canonical claim there?

These are all questions that I have been asked and I honestly don't know the OCA answer to them.

Grace and peace,
Sbn John

 

[Michael G]

But that doesn't really answer the question, because the name "Orthodox Church in America" was only given later, not at the time. That title is the assertion to canonical authority over all of North America... What I'm asking is, what is the basis of that assertion?

Like I say, I'm not disagreeing with the assertion and saying it's not true, but I'm just trying to understand the canonical basis of it, because I was asked these questions and honestly don't know the answer to them myself.

How did establishing parishes within the bounds of the Russian empire give the Russian church jurisdiction over all North America?

By the time Alaska became part of the United States, there were already Orthodox parishes in the continental United States that were never under the Russian mission. Should they have become under the Russian mission? If so, on what canonical basis?

And the Russians weren't the first to establish parishes in Mexico, for example. What is the basis of the canonical claim there?

These are all questions that I have been asked and I honestly don't know the OCA answer to them.

Grace and peace,
Sbn John

Wow, this is nitpicking. The title OCA was given once the MP decided the OCA was mature enough to rule on it's own. You simply can't build a building without a foundation and so it is with a church. The name was not there until 1970, but the foundation of the Church had been in place since the mid 1800s. What canonical basis does the EP have for it's claims to the whole world. Who made the EP Pinky and the Brain and give him the power to attempt world domination?

Answer me this, what is the canonical basis for the EP declaring the entire world that is not traditionally Orthodox to be diaspora and under his jurisdiction? I thought we declared that sort of thinking to be heresy? Isn't that much of the Orthodox Church's problem with the way Rome does things?
To the EP, I reitterate the words of His Beattitude JONAH, leave the North American Church alone!

 

[ThePilgrim]

Wow, this is nitpicking. The title OCA was given once the MP decided the OCA was mature enough to rule on it's own. You simply can't build a building without a foundation and so it is with a church. The name was not there until 1970, but the foundation of the Church had been in place since the mid 1800s. What canonical basis does the EP have for it's claims to the whole world. Who made the EP Pinky and the Brain and give him the power to attempt world domination?

Answer me this, what is the canonical basis for the EP declaring the entire world that is not traditionally Orthodox to be diaspora and under his jurisdiction? I thought we declared that sort of thinking to be heresy? Isn't that much of the Orthodox Church's problem with the way Rome does things?
To the EP, I reitterate the words of His Beattitude JONAH, leave the North American Church alone!

Michael, I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't support the EP's claims at all. Not in the slightest. I think their interpretation of Canon 28 is historically and canonically without basis at all.

Still, if we're going to be working towards unity, it should be okay to ask questions. A question isn't an insult. I'm honestly seeking for information.

If the OCA's claim is based on "being there first," how can they claim Mexico, when they weren't there first?

Also, by the time the Russian mission expanded into the United States, when Alaska was purchased, there were already existing parishes there that weren't under the Russian mission and never came under the Russian mission, even before the Bolshevik Revolution. Is it the OCA's claim that those parishes *should* have come under the Russian mission when Alaska joined the union? If so, why?

Is the claim based not on the fact that the Russians had the first parish, but rather that they were the first to establish a local diocese, while the other already existing parishes were still parts of foreign diocese? If so, that makes a little more sense to me, but that's different than what I often hear repeated.


Please, if asking these questions offends anyone in the OCA, feel free to ignore them. My goal is not to offend at all, and I certainly don't favor the EP's claims. But in order to understand, I have to ask questions. If they offend, I can not ask them, but that would leave me without a clear understanding of the basis of what the OCA claims.

Christ is risen!
Sbn John

 

[rusmeister]

As an outsider here that has no intent of arguing, I'd just point out that that name "America", as expressed in common usage, decidedly does NOT include anything other than the United Staes. The name "America" is a distinct understanding from "North America" or "South America". Generally speaking, in any language that I know (and I know several fairly well), "I'm going to America" raises no confusion about the destination. No one hastens to suggest Spanish lessons (at this point in history) or suggests going to Montreal first. It is kicking against the pricks to insist otherwise.

I also would discourage having contempt for the hierarchs of our Church, regardless of how messed up they may be, or even merely seem to be. That said, I'll iterate that I hope for an independent Church in the Western hemisphere, and would be thrilled if OCA led the charge - but would be equally happy if it were say, Antiochians that got the ball rolling.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I don't have contept for anyone. And would have prefered to remain ignorant of all this.

Forgive me...

 

[Mikeb85]

But that doesn't really answer the question, because the name "Orthodox Church in America" was only given later, not at the time. That title is the assertion to canonical authority over all of North America... What I'm asking is, what is the basis of that assertion?

Like I say, I'm not disagreeing with the assertion and saying it's not true, but I'm just trying to understand the canonical basis of it, because I was asked these questions and honestly don't know the answer to them myself.

How did establishing parishes within the bounds of the Russian empire give the Russian church jurisdiction over all North America?

By the time Alaska became part of the United States, there were already Orthodox parishes in the continental United States that were never under the Russian mission. Should they have become under the Russian mission? If so, on what canonical basis?

And the Russians weren't the first to establish parishes in Mexico, for example. What is the basis of the canonical claim there?

These are all questions that I have been asked and I honestly don't know the OCA answer to them.

Grace and peace,
Sbn John

It has nothing to do with the OCA per se. It has to do with the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church was the first to have an American diocese.

At one point in time, all the US churches - Greek, Arab and Slavic - were under the Moscow Patriarchate. Obviously this got messed up after the Russian revolution, which is why we have the situation we have now. Anyhow the OCA's claim is basically this: the Russian Church were the first to have hierarchy in North America, and the Russian Church granted the OCA autocephaly.

The real question is this: Is a church other than the EP allowed to evangelize? Is the Russian Church allowed to grant autocephalous status to it's own missions?

 

[E.C.]

The real question is this: Is a church other than the EP allowed to evangelize? Is the Russian Church allowed to grant autocephalous status to it's own missions?

That, is an excellent point.

Let's look at Japan. The closest Orthodox land to Japan is Russia.

How would it makes sense for the EP to evangelize and send things to Japan when Russia is closer?

Let's look at Africa. Africa is blessed in the sense that everybody is under the Patriarch of Alexandria's omiphorion. How would it make sense for the EP to evangelize and send things when the Patriarch of Alexandria holds the title "Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All-Africa"?

 

[jckstraw72]

i think the idea that all parishes were under the MP is an over-simplification of the history as Pilgrim has pointed out. and besides, the OCA is a schism off of ROCOR anyways ... oooh i said it! and I'm in the OCA too ...

 

[Mikeb85]

i think the idea that all parishes were under the MP is an over-simplification of the history as Pilgrim has pointed out. and besides, the OCA is a schism off of ROCOR anyways ... oooh i said it! and I'm in the OCA too ...

You're right, it is an oversimplification. Which is why I'm content to have things the way they are right now, and let all the church hierarchs decide. The OCA did start out as schismatic (well, kind-of - it had a period of schism immediately before autocephalous status), has had many problems, IMO isn't ready for 'autocephalous' status. That being said, it's a tough position because Moscow of course was first here (both its mission and hierarchy), but things went sideways after the revolution...

I honestly would fear a church led entirely by American hierarchy (BTW, I should mention again that I'm OCA as well). Already since I've converted I've seen a sort of pseudo-protestant attitude amongst some Orthodox (almost as though they became Orthodox because it's the only non-Liberal traditional church left, and it's not Roman), although our parish isn't too bad (the majority are cradle Orthodox from many, many countries - mostly Slavic and African countries).

 

[Michael G]

i think the idea that all parishes were under the MP is an over-simplification of the history as Pilgrim has pointed out. and besides, the OCA is a schism off of ROCOR anyways ... oooh i said it! and I'm in the OCA too ...

What? The OCA existed well before ROCOR was even established. What gives you that idea?

 

[jckstraw72]

ROCOR and OCA - OrthodoxWiki

 

[Michael G]

ROCOR and OCA - OrthodoxWiki

Since when was wiki a credible source on anything?

 

[Joshua G.]

Wiki is as credible as its sources which more often than not are very credible and when possible offer primary or academic secondary sources.

Here are the sources listed on that page so if something seems dubious on the page, check the source and if it is in error, fix it. that's the beauty of it!

• • Bogolepov, Alexander A. Toward an American Orthodox Church: The Establishment of an Autocephalous Orthodox Church. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2001.
  • Budzilovich, P.N. A Summary-View of the Three Previous ROCA Sobors, 2000
  • FitzGerald, Thomas E. The Orthodox Church. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1998.
  • Lebedeff, Fr. Alexander. Orthodox Jurisdictions in America
  • Liberovsky, Alexis. Synopsis of the 4th All-American Sobor (1924)
  • Liberovsky, Alexis. Synopsis of the 5th All-American Sobor (1934)
  • Liberovsky, Alexis. Synopsis of the 6th All-American Sobor (1937)
  • Liberovsky, Alexis. Synopsis of the 7th All-American Sobor (1946)
  • Liberovsky, Alexis. Synopsis of the 5th All-American Council (1977)
  • Matusiak, Fr. John. Q&A: OCA and ROCOR
  • Matusiak, Fr. John. Q&A: Russian Orthodox Church in America
  • Maximovitch, St. John. History of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (from The Orthodox Word, 1971)
  • Moss, Vladimir. The Orthodox Church in the Twentieth Century
  • Phillips, Fr. Andrew. The Last Days of Rue Daru?, 2005
  • Rodzianko, M. The Truth About the Russian Church Abroad, 1954 (tr. 1975)
  • Stokoe, Mark and Kishkovsky, Fr. Leonid. Orthodox Christians in North America 1794 - 1994
  • Surrency, Archim. Serafim. The Quest for Orthodox Church Unity in America, 1973
  • Woerl, Michael. Book Review: A History of the Orthodox Church in America (1917-1934)
  • Young, Fr. Alexey. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia: A History and Chronology, 1993

  Parish histories
  
  

  • History of Saint John the Baptist Russian Orthodox Cathedral (Mayfield, PA)
  • History of the Holy Orthodox Church: Part IV - Orthodoxy in Australia, Holy Trinity Romanian Orthodox Church (Los Angeles, CA)

  External links
  
  

  • ROCOR hierarch served Divine Liturgy in an OCA parish first since the time of the Cleveland Sobor of 1946.

  OCA
  
  

  • Q&A: OCA and ROCOR
  • Q&A: Russian Orthodox Church in America
  • ROCOR/MP Reconciliation, Fr. Leonid Kishkovsky

  ROCOR
  
  

  • The Truth About the Russian Church Abroad, by M. Rodzianko
  • Book Review: A History of the Orthodox Church in America (1917-1934), a ROCOR layman critiques a history by an OCA bishop
  • Orthodox Jurisdictions in America, by Fr. Alexander Lebedeff
  • A Brief History of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, 1922-1972, by Protopriest Sergii Shchukin

  Retrieved from "ROCOR and OCA - OrthodoxWiki"

 

[Joshua G.]

As an outsider here that has no intent of arguing, I'd just point out that that name "America", as expressed in common usage, decidedly does NOT include anything other than the United Staes. The name "America" is a distinct understanding from "North America" or "South America". Generally speaking, in any language that I know (and I know several fairly well), "I'm going to America" raises no confusion about the destination. No one hastens to suggest Spanish lessons (at this point in history) or suggests going to Montreal first. It is kicking against the pricks to insist otherwise.

that is my experience with langauges as well. However, in English that is common-speak and not official. Push come to shove, in an official title, one cannot fully assume that America refers exculsively to the U.S. and certainly such cannot be done with the OCA title. It is my understanding that the OCA's title was worded as such in order to cover more than just our country. Perhaps over-ambitious and not "fair", but it does keep it's doors open and at least a semblance of validity in Mexico and South America. Otherwise, it would have been called the OCUSA which may sound tedious since we are used to OCA but really it's just that we're not used to it. OCUSA is pretty easy to say and after saying it here about a dozen times outloud, is even catchy.

In short, the OCA was named to use the word America in it's intended form.

An interesting OT side note (having NOTHING to do with Orthodoxy), in Quebec, French-speakers have a special word for our nationality "étatsunien" that does not exist in France but for obvious reasons is an accepted form in Quebec (that's not to say they don't also say "Americain" to refer to us).