www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Consecration of OCA Bishop

In case anyone's interested, the texts and many pictures of the consecration of OCA Bishop NIKOLAI last weekend have been posted on the OCA's website.
http://www.oca.org/pages/events/Nikolai2001/index.html


Brendan

Thanks, Brendan! Yesterday night I saw the pictures. Thanks to a T3 server, they loaded real fast. Those are some very nice pictures...but I have a question. It looks like after the new bishop was consecrated, he immediately ordained someone to the priesthood. Or am I mistaken?

Mor Ephrem --

Boy, you're pretty observant, aren't you?

Yes, Bishop NIKOLAI did almost immediately ordain a priest, as indicated in the pictures. Must have been quite a weekend -- consecration of the Cathedral (which looks nice, by the way), episcopal ordination and an ordination to the priesthood.

Brendan

Whats the difference between the OCA and the ROCOR or Greek Orthodox?

Irish --

Different jurisdictions.

Brief history: first Orthodox in North America were the Russian missionaries in Alaska. This eventually developed into a "missionary diocese" of the Russian Orthodox Church. That situation continued until 1917; until the Russian Revolution, all of the Orthodox Bishops in America had been Russian Orthodox (even though there were parishes of a variety of ethnic backgrounds here -- Greeks, Serbs, Romanians, Ukranians, Carpatho-Rusyns, etc.). All of these various parishes were under the pastoral leadership of the Russian bishops here (not all of whom were Russian, btw, St. Rafael Hawaweeny, one of the missionary diocese's bishops, was an ethnic Arab).

The Russian Revolution basically ruined everything. In this country, it made everyone feel uncomfortable about being under the Russian Church, so each ethnic group began to appeal to its own old country church for Bishops -- and these were sent, marking the first time that there were multiple Orthodox Bishops in the same city in North American Orthodoxy. That's where the Greek Archdiocese comes from (it dates to 1922). The situation has persisted to the present day, sadly -- blame the communists for it.

When the Revolution happened in Russia, a group of Bishops went into exile, being ordered by the Russian Patriarch to set up a temporary church administration in exile. They first went to Serbia, then Munich and finally ended up in New York. This was the Russian Church Abroad, now known as the Russian Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR). There were attempts to retain unity with the existing Russian metropolia in North America (the remnant of the Russian missionary diocese), but these eventually broke down over the issue of what the proper posture should be vis-a-vis Moscow: The metropolia wanted to seek autonomy from Moscow (which they had de facto anyway since 1924 -- Moscow was not exercising any control over the Metropolia), whereas the ROCOR wanted to sever all ties with Moscow, period. So they went their separate ways.

In 1970, Moscow granted the metropolia not only autonomy but autocephaly -- meaning that the metropolia (which renamed itself the "Orthodox Church in America") is now a self-governing Church, independent of Moscow. Not all Orthodox Churches agreed that Moscow had the power to grant this autocephaly -- notably, Constantinople claims that only it has the power to do so. So, while some Orthodox Churches recognize the autocephaly of the OCA (ie, Russia, Georgia, Bulgaria), most don't, and instead consider OCA to be a part of the Russian Church.

Brendan

You said it.

K.

I know Kurt! If only St. Tsar Nicholas the Passion Bearer had not been dumped, there would be Orthodox unity in America!

anastasios

Dear Brendan and friends,

Is the OCA an "ethnic Church" like the Russian Orthodox Church, or is it a Church that is composed of many ethnic groups? My best example would be like this. Traditionally, the Roman Church was the Church of Rome. But as it expanded, it spread everywhere, such that it kinda transcends ethnic bounds to include a lot of people. Is the OCA an attempt at doing something like this, from the Orthodox side?

Tsar Nicholas was on a state visit to England, where, by chance, he found himself seated at a dinner, next to Disraeli's son. The Tsar remarked very loudly "I should very much like to visit Japan. It is the only country in the world in which there are no pigs and no Jews." To which the young Disraeli remarked "Your Majesty, we should go there together so the Japanese would have a sample of each."

And old story, I know, but still occasionally worth re-telling.



[This message has been edited by Kurt (edited 04-29-2001).]

[Is the OCA an "ethnic Church" like the Russian Orthodox Church, or is it a Church that is composed of many ethnic groups? ]

As a member of the OCA I can state that it is a Church composed of many ethnic groups. It has it's own Albanian, Romanian, Bulgarian diocese's within its administrative structure.
Most OCA parishes 9but not all) serve entirely in English and have Orthodox from every national background as members. Plus a fair amount of converts from every religious background you can think of.
My own parish consists of people from Russian, Carpatho Rusyn, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Albanian, Greek, and Lebanese backgrounds. Plus converts from Jewish, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Ukrainian Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, Quaker, and Episcopal backgrounds just to name a few off the top of my head. Approximately half of the members are 'cradle Orthodox' while the other half are converts.
Most of us (including myself) when asked our religious preference will say Orthodox American. To reply with 'American Orthodox' is the same as putting just another ethnic identity in front of our Orthodoxy. I answer that way because the three most cherished things in my life are my religion, my family and my country. In that order.

Bob

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurt:
[B]Tsar Nicholas was on a state visit to England, where, by chance, he found himself seated at a dinner, next to Disraeli's son. The Tsar remarked very loudly "I should very much like to visit Japan. It is the only country in the world in which there are no pigs and no Jews." To which the young Disraeli remarked "Your Majesty, we should go there together so the Japanese would have a sample of each."

And old story, I know, but still occasionally worth re-telling.


Dear Kurt:
This is an interesting story but somewhat hard to believe. Benjamin Disraeli didn't have any children, he married a widow who was twelve years older than himself and his title "Earl of Beconsfield" became extinct upon his death.

Also I would find it hard to believe that something so inane should come out of the mouth of Nicholas II, of blessed memory, who was considered to be a man of immaculate manners.

It is also highly unlikely that the Tsar should have expressed an interest in going to Japan when he was wounded and nearly killed by a sword-weighting madman on a visit to the place as Tsarevich.

Now if we were to say that the two persons in the story were actually Benjamin Disraeli and Tsar Alexander III, I would have no problems. They were both eminently capable of the discourse.

Just my two cents.
JL.


[This message has been edited by defreitasIV (edited 05-07-2001).]

>>>Tsar Nicholas was on a state visit to England, where, by chance, he found himself seated at a dinner, next to Disraeli's son. The Tsar remarked very loudly "I should very much like to visit Japan. It is the only country in the world in which there are no pigs and no Jews." To which the young Disraeli remarked "Your Majesty, we should go there together so the Japanese would have a sample of each."

And old story, I know, but still occasionally worth re-telling.

Anastasios: A story which, if true, is still nothing compared to what St. John Chrysostom had to say. Let's not judge those in the past by our standards.

anastasios

Dustin,

You are right as to a certain degree of reservation as to judging those in the past as to our standards. But certainly he was considered a rabid anti-semite in his own day. And certainly the process of canonization does judge candidates by the standards at the time of canonization, right?

K.

Christ is Risen!

Dear Brother Kurt,
As hard as it is to believe, my coming from the south, people do outgrow their prejudices as they mature and are touched by the Holy Spirit. Such a situation was The Royal Passion-Bearer Tsar Nicholas II--- while there is evidence in his early reign of anti-semitic activity---a very common issue throughout all of Europe at the time , there is a growing amount of evidence that has recently surfaced indicating a personal and political change in the Tsar's attitude toward Jews residing in Russia--- sufferage being opened to them, permission to live where-ever they wished to live in the Empire, and other signs of changes in the the Tsar.

Indeed, the most recent revelation was that just a year before the revolution, Uncles of the Tsar and his Mother chastised him for his change of heart towards the Jews---the uncles even threatened to remove the last vestiges of Romanov Family support for him and his heirs because of his support of universal sufferage which included the Jews.

Currently there are some Romanov historians who are beginning to believe that it was the withdrawal of family support that further weakened the Tsar politically leading to the Revolution. We do know that it was the withdrawal of support by the family that led him to abdicate, all be it in favor of another Romanaov Family member who in his wisdom chose to not accept thus leading to the formation of the "white russian" non-tsarist government prior to the Bolshevik Revolution.

To me and my family, the Passionbearers are the example of how a person grows through the faith of Orthodoxy overcoming their own foibles, sins, and unworthiness.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

Thomas,

I certainly hope the scholarly review of that era and Nicholas Romanov's life continues. It should be noted though, that while certainly anti-semitism was present in the rest of Europe then and in the present day, Nicholas went far beyond what was common for the time. I do think until more scholarly research is done, Catholics might respect the autonomy of the Russian Orthodox jurisdictions which allow public veneration of him, but within the Catholic community or in ecumencial circles, those who wish to venerate him should do so privately (and without objection from anyone else) while respecting the fact that, rightly or wrongly, for many other Catholics this matter raises unpleasant and sensitive issues.

Discretion is a virture.