Talk:ROCOR and OCA
Isn't the Monastery of the Glorious Ascension (Resaca, GA) under the Jerusalem Patriarch? --Joe Rodgers 23:46, 15 Jun 2005 (EDT)
- Yes, currently, but in '97 it came under ROCOR from the OCA. I believe they came under Jerusalem just recently. —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 08:32, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)
- OK, I figured you knew that. Would it be appropriate to acknowledge that in some way? --Joe Rodgers 11:02, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)
- Perhaps if there were a separate article about that monastery, that would be the place to do it. The reason I'm hesitant to include such information in this article is that the ROCOR/OCA relationship is complicated enough as it is without branching off too much into other histories. —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 12:13, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)
As this is a large article, would it be better to split this article up (similar to what was done to Western Rite)? Perhaps into 'ROCOR and Metropolia' and 'ROCOR and OCA' sections? --— by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 03:02, April 25, 2006 (CDT)
- It is somewhat long, though I don't think it is as yet too long. I'm also concerned that a split would end up disturbing the narrative coherence too much. With the WR article, it was more obviously possible, since the period was longer, including a number of smaller stories, and including whole sections of analysis. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 06:41, April 25, 2006 (CDT)
I could have sworn that I read somewhere on the internet recently that the leadership of ROCOR had signed a document officially placing itself under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow again. I'm not sure how promptly this is being carried out, though, but if true it seems to merit a mention on the OCA/ROCOR page, as the two would hopefully unite everafter. Any one have any better info for a page update? Gabriela 21:46, 12 May, 2006 (CST)
- From what I gathered, the 4th All-Diaspora Council has signed a document saying that it is basically pro-union; however, this isn't binding, and it's up to the council of bishops to decide. --— by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 22:06, May 12, 2006 (CDT)
- Ok, so nothing conclusive yet, then. Thanks for the info. I figured it was too good to be true! Perhaps one day soon. Gabriela 8:29, 13 May, 2006 (CST)
- I talked to a ROCOR priest yesterday and he said the clergy/laity had decided that the union was a go. He said that next week the synod of ROCOR bishops would make the final decision. Joe 2006-05-13
Because OCA is an autocephalous body, restoration of normal canonical relations does not necessarily follow from this resolution of the fouth all-diapora council being ratified by the synod of bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. The ROCOR will enter into Communion with Moscow much in the same way that the self-governing Ukrainian Orthodox Church is today. The ROCOR is also in Communion with the Patriarchate of Serbia, which is in Communion with all of universal Orthodoxy. Therefore it does not follow, ipso facto, that Communion with any other Church body will be restored vicariously through this unification. If such were the case, schims could result within the Church Abroad. -Reader of the Church Abroad, Diocese of San Francisco and Western America.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psaltes (talk • contribs) .
Based on everything I've been taught during the last eight years I've spent in the Russian Church Abroad, I would second the unsigned comment above. Whatever my personal feelings about the OCA are, I have not yet seen or heard anything officially declaring us to have resumed "full communion" or "concelebrations" with them. It seems like the last statement about reconciliation is a bit premature! Aaron
My understanding is that a number of bishops from various jurisdictions, including the OCA, concelebrated with ROCOR clergy in Russia following the official reconciliation between the Church of Russia and ROCOR. --Fr Lev 16:56, June 6, 2007 (PDT)
- It looks like there is some concelebrating going on, See OCA news: OCA clerics attend services marking reunification of ROCOR, Moscow Patriarchate - Andrew 05:09, June 7, 2007 (PDT)
Calling the Moscow Patriarchs "Locum Tenems"- occupying the place of the "real" patriarch in his absence- seems strongly Point Of View. Rakovsky 04:35, August 17, 2006 (CDT)
- To which spot are you referring? In most cases in the article, it was an indeniable statement of fact - Patr. Sergius was a locum tenens for quite a while before he was, after essentially doing the job for years, elevated to patriarch. The hierarch who bestowed the tomos was the locum tenens - the patriarch having died days/weeks (can't remember) before, and some of the Greek bishops, it seems, found out about the autocephaly through where Bp Theodosius was placed in the procession. As for the spot in the ROCOR letter, well, that is an advertised POV. — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 05:43, August 17, 2006 (CDT)
Fast response, Pistevo! How about the point in the ROCOR letter, which you described, perhaps correctly, as an "advertised" point of view. It was not clear to me at first whether this was just ROCOR's Point of View or everyone agreed it to be Locum Tenems. Maybe a parenthetical note should be added in the text.
By the way, it was enjoyable reading different parts of the article, including about refusing negotiations in the 1940's with Moscow after the convention had already voted for it, because of rumors of - a clergyman with a handheld atomic bomb :) :) Seriously though, what are some different explanations of why the Metropolitan refused negotiations, after inviting Gregory? Just that he only wanted the negotiations as a pretext for leaving ROCOR? Rakovsky 06:28, August 17, 2006 (CDT)
- I checked through the article for all mentions of the phrase locum tenens, and none were based on a POV other than that which is verifiable, documentable public record. Even the referenced ROCOR letter referred to Metr. Pimen as the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, when it was probably the case that some in ROCOR might not have regarded him in some sense as a bishop at all (as many regarded the MP synod itself as wholly illegitimate).
- Anyway, I'm the one who mostly researched and wrote this article, and I couldn't find any specifically documentable reasons for why Theophilus chose not to negotiate with Gregory. One may of course speculate. —Dcn. Andrew talk contribs 06:38, August 17, 2006 (CDT)
Let me make a follow-up, by now 14 years later. In 1925-1937, Met. Sergius was the deputy of the locum tenens of the Moscow Patriarch and became Patriarch in 1943. In 1970, Met. Pimen was the locum tenens of the MP and became Patriarch in 1971. So during the two periods that the article referred to, those hierarchs were not as yet patriarchs according to the M.P. itself. I had mistakenly misread the article as implying that the patriarchs of Moscow were not real patriarchs, but only "locum tenens" due to a possible view by ROCOR of the MP's illegitimacy.
Recently, I have been learning more about the MP in this period, and it also appears that ROCOR's theologians had a range of views on the status of the MP. While the ROCOR was out of communion with the MP, apparently there were some ROCOR theologians who thought that the MP still had legitimacy or grace, whereas I had just taken it to be the case that ROCOR across the board dismissed the whole MP as illegitimate. Fortunately, now with the reconciliation of 2007 and resumption of OCA-ROCOR-OCA relations, we can have better, fuller, more nuanced views of each others' histories. Along similar lines, I heard that ROCOR at the time wasn't aware that most clergy in the USSR who rejected the legitimacy of Pat. Sergius had reconciled with the MP under Pat. Alexei. One of them was a famous hierarch of the "non-commemorators" (those who didn't commemorate Pat. Sergius). Rakovsky (talk) 17:50, May 28, 2020 (UTC)