Comments on: The First Convert Orthodox Bishop in America

By: Matthew Namee

Matthew Namee — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:38:08 +0000

I think a good comparison for the old Metropolia is ROCOR prior to its recent reconciliation with Moscow. In both cases, the groups in question were certainly Orthodox, but their canonical status was irregular. The rest of the Orthodox world wasn’t quite sure how to view them. At the same time, both were viewed as much more legitimate than, for instance, Aftimios’ AOCC, or modern groups like ROAC or HOCNA.

By: Fr. Andrew S. Damick

Fr. Andrew S. Damick — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:11:52 +0000

A unilateral declaration of independence (which is what the Metropolia did in 1924) is a canonically questionable (and, historically, not just questioned but outright condemned) move in anyone’s book. Both Moscow and the ROCOR (both of which the Metropolia had been part) condemned the move, and for a number of decades, the Metropolia was treated by many Orthodox in North America much the way the Old Calendarists are today (“probably Orthodox, but let’s stay away just to be safe”). They were not, for instance, permitted to be part of the proto-SCOBA Federation formed in the 1940s. It was certainly not a part of what today would be glossed as “world Orthodoxy” (which at the time included some rather shady groups).

In any event, to say so is not a judgment on the “canonicity” (not sure what that means as distinct from “canonical status”) or the effectiveness of sacraments, etc. It’s just a recognition of the chaotic canonical situation in America at the time (in this case, the Metropolia specifically). In any event, this is 1924-1932 we’re talking about, so whether anyone “continue[s] to question” the OCA’s status is really beside the point here.

That the Metropolia’s independence in 1924 was of questionable canonical status is a matter of history. How one chooses to apply that history to today’s situation is something else.

By: orrologion

orrologion — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:00:47 +0000

…the Russian Metropolia in America (itself of questionable canonical status since 1924, when it declared itself independent of its mother church).

“Questionable” or “questioned”? “Canonical status” or canonicity and grace of its sacraments? At the time, I believe some local churches had accepted The Living Church as ‘canonical’, which time has shown to be patently untrue. Oddly, to me, mostly the only ones that continue to question the status of the OCA/Metropolia are in ROCOR, which itself was under an even darker cloud of suspicion for most of the last century.