The OCA is the Novus Ordo of the Orthodox, by the way.
The ROCOR is the most traditional of all jurisdictions.
Well, besides the Old Calendarists and Old Believers, both of whom have "anathematized" both ROCOR (which has now been re-united to the Moscow Patriarchate) and OCA. The former is rejected by the Old Calendarists because it is staffed by KGB agents; therefore, on account of openly being Donatists, the Old Calendarists reject all of their sacraments, including baptism, as invalid. On top of this, everybody else adopted the Gregorian Calendar and therefore are rejected by the Old Calendarists as heretics, once again with entirely invalid sacraments -- no priests, no baptism, nothing.
Old Believers of course hold to the same Donatist error, but they are even more extreme, their schism (within a schism) going back to the XVIIth century reform of the Russian liturgy to unify it with Greek praxis, from which it had at some point diverged. This introduces the problem, too, of whose practice was more ancient. Was the true practice of crossing oneself lost ? Were the true prayers lost ? There is no way to affirm the matter one way or another without an appeal to scholarship or to an a priori declaration of victory for one side or another. Ultimately, the Faith is not based on any consistent and coherent ancient tradition rooted in the Apostles, then; one's proximate rule of faith is in a mass of probabilities, the sympathy to which is often determined by ethnic affiliation. As such, some Old Believers believe there are no priests left on the earth. Like the Old Calendarists, they have anthematized both ROCOR, OCA, and all the rest; but they have also anathematized the Old Calendarists, as well as other Old Believers. And vice versa !
There is nobody within the falsely so-called "Orthodox" churches that could possibly gainsay these anathemae, since amongst their factions there is no unique arbiter and judge of matters of Faith endowed with divine authority over the various different bodies who can pass a final decision on these matters. The only thing that the New Calendar Greeks or others who have strayed from the ancient liturgical praxis of either the Russian or Greek liturgies could possibly do is anathematize them back. But who is right ? One would necessarily be at an impasse to find an Apostolic foundation for any legal mechanism that would be supplied to the faithful as a recourse for this disunity of faith, governance, and liturgy. The only recourse, then, is energetic repetition of one's position and the threat of violence. Usually, if a union is forged by a large number of the Orthodox, it is reliant on political pressure and careerist compromise to push it through. One's confidence in one's faith is therefore unsustainable within the Eastern sects, since it is demonstrably compromised by intrigue and ex post facto appeals to consensus and institutional inertia. Perhaps that is why wars against perceived foreign enemies and ethnic chauvinism have become such vital elements wherever there are proud "Orthodox" to insist on their membership in the True Church. That is one of the truest ways to ensure enthusiastic membership -- to root it not in the pure doctrines that have been preserved from the fathers but rather to moor it in ethnic pride, carnal concerns, and blatant fideism.
This absurd state of affairs, of course, is belied by the existence of a Church that has a systematic theology and legal tradition taught and preserved by a unique head whose office therefore assures unity of Faith, of governance, and of sacraments -- and this office is backed up by the revelations within the Holy Scriptures and by immemorial Tradition dating to the earliest times and then shining forth in the writings and confessions of the Church Fathers. In the fact of this, the Orthodox have no systematic theological system or ecclesial authority to give weight to their appeal. They only have their insistence on being right, a position backed up by nothing but their own word. The Orthodox are similar to the fideistic Protestant fundamentalists in that way, then. Perhaps that is why they appeal so often to liturgical spirituality in the face of metaphysical arguments. Ultimately, when the original schism is more about being Greek or Egyptian or Russian -- rather than being under one of those Latin scoundrels (condemned as such a priori, but such is the way of things) -- than about the Faith, that is all one has : Vague appeals to mystery, belief in the novelties of divine energies, uncreated light, hesychasm, rejection of Purgatory/Tollhouses, rejection of the Immaculate Conception (All-Holiness of Mary), rejection of the Assumption, etc. When one's faith is ultimately rooted in not being subject to the Petrine See of Rome, soon one's Faith morphs into a giant reaction to and rejection of whatever the Latins do. And now the Greeks reject teachings held by the unanimous moral consensus of the Fathers. But don't worry, at least they aren't subject to the "tyranny" of "Roman legalism" which is untrustworthy -- never mind the explicit promise of Christ that the Holy Ghost would always preserve the Faith of St Peter.
Topic: Roman Catholic to Orthodox (Read 9333 times)