OCA and GOA in communion or not?

ArmyMatt said:

okay, I thought it extended to the laity. thanks!

Click to expand...

Maybe it does and I’m wrong...that’s why I included the question mark...wanted to try and verify, but maybe I should ask my priest again.

“Paisios” said:

Maybe it does and I’m wrong...that’s why I included the question mark...wanted to try and verify, but maybe I should ask my priest again.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure and not near New England, so I dunno.

“Paisios” said:

I am under Met. Methodios. My priest told me our laity can commune with the OCA in general and in the Boston diocese, but that there was some kind of prohibition for the OCA/GOA clergy serving together in that particular diocese (though he didn’t go into details)?

Click to expand...

The Boston situation goes back a few decades. The short version is that the bishop's seat was vacant for one jurisdiction while it was still occupied for the other. The vacant seat eventually got filled and the other jurisdiction got offended by it.

For some reason jurisdictionalism tends to take an extremist route in New England.

E.C. said:

The Boston situation goes back a few decades. The short version is that the bishop's seat was vacant for one jurisdiction while it was still occupied for the other. The vacant seat eventually got filled and the other jurisdiction got offended by it.

For some reason jurisdictionalism tends to take an extremist route in New England.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

The MP's breach of communion with the EP has been quite porous so far... Patriarch Kirill indicated that Russian pilgrims could commune at St Panteleimon's monastery on Mt Athos (it has Russian monks but it is still under the EP) and someone reported one of ROCOR's bishops advising ROCOR youth that they could commune at Elder Ephraim's monasteries.

Zummi said:

Certainly in any of them not under the Patriarch of Moscow. It gets trickier if they wanted to go to a Moscow seminary, but I've seen Non-Chalcedonians at Holy Cross in Brookline so I don't know

Click to expand...

The Coptic church typically has a handful of people in HCHC. Since the Copts dont have enough of a presence to do their own seminary, HCHC was their seminary. Not sure if the OCA seminaries had such a program. When I was there, there was a Coptic priest who was getting a second masters and a couple of men who were there to become priests. The one Coptic woman in my class now teaches at Fordham University.

GreekOrthodox said:

The Coptic church typically has a handful of people in HCHC. Since the Copts dont have enough of a presence to do their own seminary, HCHC was their seminary. Not sure if the OCA seminaries had such a program. When I was there, there was a Coptic priest who was getting a second masters and a couple of men who were there to become priests. The one Coptic woman in my class now teaches at Fordham University.

Click to expand...

they do-ish. both STOTS and SVOTS have non-Chalcedonian students, but I know for a fact STOTS doesn't teach the nonsense that we have the same faith. but STOTS is also not polemical against them.

ArmyMatt said:

they do-ish. both STOTS and SVOTS have non-Chalcedonian students, but I know for a fact STOTS doesn't teach the nonsense that we have the same faith. but STOTS is also not polemical against them.

Click to expand...

We all agreed that we have some irreconcilable differences but that didn't stop us from discussing things from person to person. Preferably over beer

GreekOrthodox said:

We all agreed that we have some irreconcilable differences but that didn't stop us from discussing things from person to person. Preferably over beer

Click to expand...

correct, some of the best folks to talk to.

I'd say we still have more in common with the OO's than we do the Latin Catholics.

agreed

ArmyMatt said:

agreed

Click to expand...

This makes me so happy

Andrei D said:

This makes me so happy

Click to expand...

just curious, why?

ArmyMatt said:

just curious, why?

Click to expand...

Maybe it's again a variance between Local Churches, but most priests I spoke to in Romania have a very bad attitude towards non-Chalcedonians which I always thought was unfair, unloving and inaccurate.

Please don't anathemize me, but I for one feel in my soul that Christ cannot but love the OO even if only because of their ongoing silent martyrdom and resilience in faith; I also believe that it is the most ignored miracle of our time how, after a longer schism, EO and OO have drifted apart so little compared to the natural divergent outcome we see between EO and the RCC.

well, I can't anathematize anyone since I am not a Synod of bishops. and I would say of course that Christ loves the non-Chalcedonians, and their long suffering is worthy of praise. but I also have to say they a heretical body, and while closest to us, are still outside of the Body of Christ.

ArmyMatt said:

well, I can't anathematize anyone since I am not a Synod of bishops. and I would say of course that Christ loves the non-Chalcedonians, and their long suffering is worthy of praise. but I also have to say they a heretical body, and while closest to us, are still outside of the Body of Christ.

Click to expand...

Fr Matt, I think I remember your saying once, re: the Coptic Church, "where is the heresy?" - meaning that you didn't see the heresy that was keeping us apart. Do I misremember?

archer75 said:

Fr Matt, I think I remember your saying once, re: the Coptic Church, "where is the heresy?" - meaning that you didn't see the heresy that was keeping us apart. Do I misremember?

Click to expand...

no, haha. historically, they were the ones who accused Chalcedon of heresy. so my question was for them to find the heresy in Chalcedon. unfortunately for their argument, they cannot point to what is perceived to be heresy in Chalcedon, without condemning earlier Fathers we both agree with (to include St Cyril of Alexandria, whom they claim to defend).

ArmyMatt said:

no, haha. historically, they were the ones who accused Chalcedon of heresy.

Click to expand...

Yes, and they are upset about various things that may or may have not transpired at the time.

Whereas the question really is valid - where is the heresy?

It is very hard for the less enlightened or educated such as myself to figure out where the heresy is looking strictly at the opposing Christologies. And it is even harder to explain, as Hillary would put it, "what difference does it make" today.

My point is that if one is not invested by the animus of the conflict, debate and events, and subsequent history, the strict difference in "opinion" seems to be more like this:



(Optical Illusions | The Bezold Effect | The Munker-White Illusion | Edvard Munch's Scream)

Andrei D said:

And it is even harder to explain, as Hillary would put it, "what difference does it make" today.

Click to expand...

it makes a world of difference, because Severus of Antioch cannot be a saint and a heretic, venerated and condemned. will and operation cannot be rooted in nature and in the person, and Palamism cannot be heresy or true.

these are differences we have to this day, and both sides cannot be correct.

Andrei D said:

My point is that if one is not invested by the animus of the conflict, debate and events, and subsequent history, the strict difference in "opinion" seems to be more like this:

Click to expand...

and you have to be invested in the history and the debates, not with animus, but searching for who has the truth, or where the truth is.