Talk:ROCOR and OCA

From OrthodoxWiki
Revision as of 13:30, May 13, 2006 by Gabriela (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Ascension Monastery

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. —[[User:ASDamick|—Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!)]] 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. —[[User:ASDamick|—Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!)]] 12:13, 16 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Article Size

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[1], 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)