OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 05:02:37 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Russian Orthodox Church on Ecumenism  (Read 19115 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #135 on: July 24, 2009, 01:58:30 PM »

I have to say I am really grateful to Peter the Aleut sticking up for me, even though I know we disagree on things related to this issue!

I very much recognize that the Moscow Patriarchate is currently one of the most conservative of the WCC Orthodox members (this was certainly not the case in former times, but we'll leave that matter for now). They made a pretty conservative statement in that 2000 declaration that you posted and which I did read. It's not as unambiguous a rejection of syncretism as you would find in an old-style ROCA statement, but in comparison with the kind of things the Ecumenical Patriarch is saying, of course, it is. However, I don't think the right way to interpret that conservatism is what you suggest, namely that it somehow cancels out the much more obviously syncretistic statements in those WCC documents I quoted from, which the MP signed. The same even goes for the paradoxical claims within those WCC documents that you pointed out. To me, it is simply two-faced hypocrisy.

There is a useful comparison with the fourth century controversy over Arianism. Arius actually published a retraction of his doctrines, but St Athanasius famously did not accept it, because he did not think it was genuine (I can't recall why, but probably Arius had been making contrary statements at the same time). Of course, Athanasius turned out to be right, since Arius retracted his retraction. The lesson of this is that heretics are likely to be dissembling about their position, in order to deceive the true believers. That's how I feel about the MP's current 'traditionalism'; it's a ploy to keep the traditionalists on board, especially those in the formerly independent ROCOR. At the same time, they keep their foot in the ecumenist camp by continuing membership of the WCC and dialog with the Vatican. Their behavior is suspicious, and I sincerely believe that traditionalists are much better advised to join a jurisdiction that is unambiguous rather than dissembling in its opposition to ecumenism.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #136 on: July 24, 2009, 02:04:24 PM »

I have to say I am really grateful to Peter the Aleut sticking up for me, even though I know we disagree on things related to this issue!

I very much recognize that the Moscow Patriarchate is currently one of the most conservative of the WCC Orthodox members (this was certainly not the case in former times, but we'll leave that matter for now). They made a pretty conservative statement in that 2000 declaration that you posted and which I did read. It's not as unambiguous a rejection of syncretism as you would find in an old-style ROCA statement, but in comparison with the kind of things the Ecumenical Patriarch is saying, of course, it is. However, I don't think the right way to interpret that conservatism is what you suggest, namely that it somehow cancels out the much more obviously syncretistic statements in those WCC documents I quoted from, which the MP signed. The same even goes for the paradoxical claims within those WCC documents that you pointed out. To me, it is simply two-faced hypocrisy.

There is a useful comparison with the fourth century controversy over Arianism. Arius actually published a retraction of his doctrines, but St Athanasius famously did not accept it, because he did not think it was genuine (I can't recall why, but probably Arius had been making contrary statements at the same time). Of course, Athanasius turned out to be right, since Arius retracted his retraction. The lesson of this is that heretics are likely to be dissembling about their position, in order to deceive the true believers. That's how I feel about the MP's current 'traditionalism'; it's a ploy to keep the traditionalists on board, especially those in the formerly independent ROCOR. At the same time, they keep their foot in the ecumenist camp by continuing membership of the WCC and dialog with the Vatican. Their behavior is suspicious, and I sincerely believe that traditionalists are much better advised to join a jurisdiction that is unambiguous.

and in communion only with itself

Quote
rather than dissembling in its opposition to ecumenism.
and to communion with any but itself.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,659


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #137 on: July 24, 2009, 02:39:03 PM »

I have to say I am really grateful to Peter the Aleut sticking up for me, even though I know we disagree on things related to this issue!

I very much recognize that the Moscow Patriarchate is currently one of the most conservative of the WCC Orthodox members (this was certainly not the case in former times, but we'll leave that matter for now). They made a pretty conservative statement in that 2000 declaration that you posted and which I did read. It's not as unambiguous a rejection of syncretism as you would find in an old-style ROCA statement, but in comparison with the kind of things the Ecumenical Patriarch is saying, of course, it is. However, I don't think the right way to interpret that conservatism is what you suggest, namely that it somehow cancels out the much more obviously syncretistic statements in those WCC documents I quoted from, which the MP signed. The same even goes for the paradoxical claims within those WCC documents that you pointed out. To me, it is simply two-faced hypocrisy.

There is a useful comparison with the fourth century controversy over Arianism. Arius actually published a retraction of his doctrines, but St Athanasius famously did not accept it, because he did not think it was genuine (I can't recall why, but probably Arius had been making contrary statements at the same time). Of course, Athanasius turned out to be right, since Arius retracted his retraction. The lesson of this is that heretics are likely to be dissembling about their position, in order to deceive the true believers. That's how I feel about the MP's current 'traditionalism'; it's a ploy to keep the traditionalists on board, especially those in the formerly independent ROCOR. At the same time, they keep their foot in the ecumenist camp by continuing membership of the WCC and dialog with the Vatican. Their behavior is suspicious, and I sincerely believe that traditionalists are much better advised to join a jurisdiction that is unambiguous.

and in communion only with itself

Quote
rather than dissembling in its opposition to ecumenism.
and to communion with any but itself.
Isa, it's readily apparent you have nothing more to say when all you can do is resort to mindless potshots.  Maybe you should just give it up. Tongue
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #138 on: July 24, 2009, 02:46:02 PM »

I have to say I am really grateful to Peter the Aleut sticking up for me, even though I know we disagree on things related to this issue!

I very much recognize that the Moscow Patriarchate is currently one of the most conservative of the WCC Orthodox members (this was certainly not the case in former times, but we'll leave that matter for now). They made a pretty conservative statement in that 2000 declaration that you posted and which I did read. It's not as unambiguous a rejection of syncretism as you would find in an old-style ROCA statement, but in comparison with the kind of things the Ecumenical Patriarch is saying, of course, it is. However, I don't think the right way to interpret that conservatism is what you suggest, namely that it somehow cancels out the much more obviously syncretistic statements in those WCC documents I quoted from, which the MP signed. The same even goes for the paradoxical claims within those WCC documents that you pointed out. To me, it is simply two-faced hypocrisy.

There is a useful comparison with the fourth century controversy over Arianism. Arius actually published a retraction of his doctrines, but St Athanasius famously did not accept it, because he did not think it was genuine (I can't recall why, but probably Arius had been making contrary statements at the same time). Of course, Athanasius turned out to be right, since Arius retracted his retraction. The lesson of this is that heretics are likely to be dissembling about their position, in order to deceive the true believers. That's how I feel about the MP's current 'traditionalism'; it's a ploy to keep the traditionalists on board, especially those in the formerly independent ROCOR. At the same time, they keep their foot in the ecumenist camp by continuing membership of the WCC and dialog with the Vatican. Their behavior is suspicious, and I sincerely believe that traditionalists are much better advised to join a jurisdiction that is unambiguous.

and in communion only with itself

Quote
rather than dissembling in its opposition to ecumenism.
and to communion with any but itself.
Isa, it's readily apparent you have nothing more to say when all you can do is resort to mindless potshots.  Maybe you should just give it up. Tongue

As we say in Egypt, it seems the pot has found its laddle.

I have yet to see an explanation of how TOM resembles St. Athanasius, to whom the self comparison was made, who was in communion with others while he was contra mundi, and yet the TOM are mutually exclusive and hostile to each other.  The only thing that seems to unite them is railing against this WCC World Orthodoxy communion construct that exists only in their polemic.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #139 on: July 24, 2009, 04:19:48 PM »

...However, I don't think the right way to interpret that conservatism is what you suggest, namely that it somehow cancels out the much more obviously syncretistic statements in those WCC documents I quoted from, which the MP signed. The same even goes for the paradoxical claims within those WCC documents that you pointed out. To me, it is simply two-faced hypocrisy.


Would you, then, explain to us what should be the proper way of "canceling" the documents of WCC that MP did sign?
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #140 on: July 24, 2009, 04:46:15 PM »


...I sincerely believe that traditionalists are much better advised to join a jurisdiction that is unambiguous rather than dissembling in its opposition to ecumenism.

Better to join an Orthodox Church than one of the True Orthodoxy jurisdictions which are all new schismatic creations of the last few decades.   The holy Fathers have sharp words to say of those who go into schism.   

The Traditional Orthodoxy Movement is firmly based on the ecumencal principle of "The Invisible Church."    But all its branches are separated by warring episcopates and a lack of intercommunion.  It seems very Protestant.   If you choose to join one or other of these sectarian jurisdictions you wil find that your communion choices are extremely limited - for example, you may commune in the parishes under Archbishop Agathangel but nowhere else since he sees the rest of the True Orthodoxy Movement as a graceless sham.  Ditto for many of the other bishops in the True Orthodox Movement, whether in Greece or Russia or America.  It is a jungle world of warring bishops.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #141 on: July 24, 2009, 05:09:13 PM »

However, I don't think the right way to interpret that conservatism is what you suggest, namely that it somehow cancels out the much more obviously syncretistic statements in those WCC documents I quoted from, which the MP signed. The same even goes for the paradoxical claims within those WCC documents that you pointed out. To me, it is simply two-faced hypocrisy.

Did not the Church of Russia reject the Porto Allegre Statement (signed by Bishop Hilarion) just as it rejected the German ecumenical document acknowledging heterodox baptism.

In 2008 the Patriarch and the Russian Synod rebuked the Russian bishop in Germany for signing an ecumenical statement recognising the validity of Lutheran baptism.

Really, that is a h~u~g~e~ly anti-ecumenical statement.

And have we so soon forgotten the announcement in 2008 by the Moscow Patriarchate's Department for External Church Relations condemning prayer with the heterodox.

So we have from Moscow

1. the non-recognition of Lutheran baptism
2. refusal of common prayer with the non-Orthodox

These are hardly the positions of an "ecumenist" Patriarch and Church and your accustion of "two-faced hypocrisy" is out of place.  These statements from Russia are not hidden under a bushel but are known to all in the ecumenical movement.   Where then the "two-faced hypocrisy"?
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,942


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #142 on: July 24, 2009, 05:34:54 PM »

"Rightful owners" is a rather subjective reading of events:

Not subjective at all.  By the time of the pseudo-synods of Lviv,

1700.

Quote
Uzhorod,

1646

Quote
Presov,

1646, 1818.

Quote
and Alba Iulia

1700

Quote
the majority of the churches in Greek Catholic possesion were built by Greek Catholics after the unions. 

We know that before these unions ALL Churches were built by the Orthodox and were taken from them.

Quote
The Orthodox simply had no claim to them period.

Just to name a few examples:Romania, besides the properties that the Austro-Hungarian stole and the ones that they destroyed, there are also those that were suppressed by their Holy and Most Catholic Majesties (the Romanian Orthodox were given leave for one bishop only in 1864, when it became obvious that the policy of extermination didn't work, and an independent Orthodox Romanian Kingdom was forming on the southern border), in addition to the ill gotten gain that was turned over to the "Romanian Church united with Rome" by the secret, unconstitutional, concordant between the Vatican and her son, King Ferdinand I.  In Lviv, the Vatican in 1746 build cathedral of St. George on the site of the destroyed Orthodox Cathedral (c. 1280-1700, the jurisdiction of the Vatican still has not matched the Orthodox's tenure).  I don't know about Czech-Slovak law during the interwar democratic Republic, when the mass conversion to Orthodoxy took place.

Then of course there is the question of the return to Orthodoxy in these places before WWI.....

When I was in Romania in 1992, I saw ads all over for the "Catechismul Bisericii Catolice" all over the place. Shortly before, JP II had said that "if the Romanians were really Romans, they would be Roman Catholic" (no recognition of the fact, that while the Romans were in Dacia, ancient Romania, the mass at Rome was in Greek). When I went to the cathedral of Bucharest, plenty were to be had, although the masses I recall were in Hungarian. This, when the English version was unavailable (that would be 5 more years), though the Vatican has far, far more Anglophones than Romanophones, and only a year after it had come out. What was that all about?

I don't understand the question, what is it you want to know?

If this were true

For all the claims of Catholic sheep stealing I fail to see any evidence of it.

why such a massive influx of unneeded catechisms, when a much greater need (e.g. the Anglophone followers of the Vatican) wasn't being met?

When asked to apologize for the pseudo-Synods, the MP stated they had nothing to apologize for because they could not anull the decisions of a "Catholic" Synod.  So if pseudo-Synods of terrorized married priests count as legitimate Catholic Synods in the MP's eyes then certainly bishop convoked Syonds like Brest or Alba Iulia are equally legitimate.  Or are the only Synods that count the ones that benefit the Orthodox Church?

As to the churches pre-unia, I am well aware of who built them.  However, trying to compare the situations of the Unia which occured under a feudal system and where following the Church of the Emperor made life easier if (it was not compulsory) to those of the pseudo-Synods that occured post World War II where freedom of religion was a generally recognized right by civilized society is ridiculous.  By the 1940s most Greek Catholic Churches had been built by Greek Catholics in the 17th and 18th centuries.  I repeat the Orthodox had no claim to them.

So your evidence of sheep stealing is ads for the Catechism and the fact they were available in the Latin Catholic Cathedral?  In 92 you say?  That's funny because the Latin edition, the first edition in any language, wasn't published until 93.  Also the English edition was first published in 95, it was revised in 97.  I see your personal recollections are as accurate as your other info about Greek Catholics.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #143 on: July 24, 2009, 06:51:05 PM »

I only have a few minutes, but...

"Rightful owners" is a rather subjective reading of events:

Not subjective at all.  By the time of the pseudo-synods of Lviv,

1700.

Quote
Uzhorod,

1646

Quote
Presov,

1646, 1818.

Quote
and Alba Iulia

1700

Quote
the majority of the churches in Greek Catholic possesion were built by Greek Catholics after the unions. 

We know that before these unions ALL Churches were built by the Orthodox and were taken from them.

Quote
The Orthodox simply had no claim to them period.

Just to name a few examples:Romania, besides the properties that the Austro-Hungarian stole and the ones that they destroyed, there are also those that were suppressed by their Holy and Most Catholic Majesties (the Romanian Orthodox were given leave for one bishop only in 1864, when it became obvious that the policy of extermination didn't work, and an independent Orthodox Romanian Kingdom was forming on the southern border), in addition to the ill gotten gain that was turned over to the "Romanian Church united with Rome" by the secret, unconstitutional, concordant between the Vatican and her son, King Ferdinand I.  In Lviv, the Vatican in 1746 build cathedral of St. George on the site of the destroyed Orthodox Cathedral (c. 1280-1700, the jurisdiction of the Vatican still has not matched the Orthodox's tenure).  I don't know about Czech-Slovak law during the interwar democratic Republic, when the mass conversion to Orthodoxy took place.

Then of course there is the question of the return to Orthodoxy in these places before WWI.....

When I was in Romania in 1992, I saw ads all over for the "Catechismul Bisericii Catolice" all over the place. Shortly before, JP II had said that "if the Romanians were really Romans, they would be Roman Catholic" (no recognition of the fact, that while the Romans were in Dacia, ancient Romania, the mass at Rome was in Greek). When I went to the cathedral of Bucharest, plenty were to be had, although the masses I recall were in Hungarian. This, when the English version was unavailable (that would be 5 more years), though the Vatican has far, far more Anglophones than Romanophones, and only a year after it had come out. What was that all about?

I don't understand the question, what is it you want to know?

If this were true

For all the claims of Catholic sheep stealing I fail to see any evidence of it.

why such a massive influx of unneeded catechisms, when a much greater need (e.g. the Anglophone followers of the Vatican) wasn't being met?

When asked to apologize for the pseudo-Synods, the MP stated they had nothing to apologize for because they could not anull the decisions of a "Catholic" Synod.  So if pseudo-Synods of terrorized married priests count as legitimate Catholic Synods in the MP's eyes then certainly bishop convoked Syonds like Brest or Alba Iulia are equally legitimate.  Or are the only Synods that count the ones that benefit the Orthodox Church?

I don't know of Orthodox celebrating the synods of the commisars as legitimate synods.

The same cannot be said of the Vatican, e.g.:
Quote
APOSTOLIC LETTER
OF THE HOLY FATHER
JOHN PAUL II
FOR THE THIRD CENTENARY OF THE UNION
OF THE GREEK-CATHOLIC CHURCH OF ROMANIA
WITH THE CHURCH OF ROME
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20000720_unione-romania-roma_en.html

Quote
APOSTOLIC LETTER
OF POPE JOHN PAUL II
THE 350TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UNION OF UZHOROD
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19960418_union-uzhorod_en.html

Quote
APOSTOLIC LETTER
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
FOR THE FOURTH CENTENARY
OF THE UNION OF BREST
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19951112_iv-cent-union-brest_en.html

etc.

(btw, was in Philadelphia this month, after the consecration of the bishop of Pittsburgh.  Was drawn to a golden Cross crowned dome, and found out that it was the Brest's local chapter, with the dates in mosaic with the Vatican symbols on the front.  BEAUTIFUL building, but what it represents, well....sort of like the Dome of the Rock on that score).

Please inform me about the celebrations in the 90's over the communist synods.

I know that there were celebrations over the glorification of St. Alexis Toth, and I should expect for the glorification of St. Alexander:
Quote
In the 1890s, 145 years after Orthodoxy had ceased to exist in the Carpathians, a 'return to Orthodoxy' movement began, reaching a high point in the 1920s. Many Greek Catholics who became Orthodox were arrested for treason and a few were even executed by the government, with the Talerhof Concentration Camp5 and Martyr-Priest Maxim Sandovich's death in 1914 being the best known incidents. Meanwhile, the Russian Bolshevik Revolution was forcing Russians of the nobility and middle class to leave Russia, and many settled in the USA. These Russians arrived and began integrating into the American Russian Orthodox Church (the Metropolia) at precisely the same time that Carpatho-Russians in America were also returning to the Orthodox faith.6 Leading the charge was Fr. Alexis Toth, a former Greek Catholic priest who converted many to Orthodoxy (due to his initial efforts, over 50% of USA Rusyns are Orthodox). This American mixing further influenced events and persecutions back in the Carpathian homeland, where thousands of fleeing Orthodox Russians also settled, including monks who founded the Ladomirova Monastery....

....Later in 1991, there were major protests, including physical attacks and hunger strikes when it was decided to give the cathedral back to the Greek Catholics. The Orthodox immediately set about to build the new Cathedral of the Exaltation of the Cross, under the guidance of Fr. Dmitrii (Dymytrij) Sydor, a Moscow Patriarchate priest (perhaps the most visible cleric in all modern Transcarpathia) who is extremely active in the Carpatho-Russian/Rusyn movement. The architecture of the new cathedral is based on the design of the famous and newly rebuilt ‘Cathedral of Christ the Savior’ in Moscow, which is the largest church in Russia. Currently, Orthodox believers are outraged at the impending construction of a new Roman and Greek Catholic cathedral complex in the vicinity of the Orthodox cathedral. So, they announced they would erect another church of their own in downtown Uzhgorod, right in front of the original Greek Catholic cathedral, tit-for-tat. The new church will be consecrated after St. Alexei Kabalyuk, a Rusyn Orthodox hero. Kabalyuk was born into a Greek Catholic family but converted to Orthodoxy, became a priest and played a major role in reviving Orthodoxy in Transcarpathia in the early 20th century. On the eve of WWI, Kabalyuk was jailed, and later was a major leader of the Carpathian Orthodox until his death in 1947. He was canonized in 2001, but as the primary Orthodox leader who assisted the Soviets in the 1946 liquidation, is offensive to the Greek Catholics.
http://www.simkovich.org/religion.htm

Quote
As to the churches pre-unia, I am well aware of who built them.  However, trying to compare the situations of the Unia which occured under a feudal system and where following the Church of the Emperor made life easier if (it was not compulsory) to those of the pseudo-Synods that occured post World War II where freedom of religion was a generally recognized right by civilized society is ridiculous.

Yeah, the Soviet system was full of guarentees of freedom of religion. Care to explain the arrest, executions and liquidation of the Orthodox, returners to Orthodoxy and even those submitting to the Vatican in Austro-Hungary on the eve of WWI, and in Poland between the wars?  I heard of that from those who lived through it.

No, it was compulsary: Emperor Leopold for instance "united" the Romanians by imperial decree.


Quote
 By the 1940s most Greek Catholic Churches had been built by Greek Catholics in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Are you counting churches like St. George in Lviv, which demolished the Orthodox Cathedral (nearly half a millenium old) to make way for the Vatican's cathedral on the exact same spot?

Do you have any facts and figures to back up the assertion about who build the Churches standing in 1948?


Quote
 I repeat the Orthodox had no claim to them.

LOL.  You can repeat it all you like.  It seems the Russians, Romanians and Ukrainians take that into consideration.

Quote
So your evidence of sheep stealing is ads for the Catechism and the fact they were available in the Latin Catholic Cathedral?  In 92 you say?  That's funny because the Latin edition, the first edition in any language, wasn't published until 93.  Also the English edition was first published in 95, it was revised in 97.  I see your personal recollections are as accurate as your other info about Greek Catholics.

LOL. Seems you don't know your catechism as well as you think, deacon.

Quote
APOSTOLIC LETTER
LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE
IN WHICH THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
IS APPROVED AND PROMULGATED

IT IS A CAUSE FOR GREAT JOY THAT THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS BEING PUBLISHED.

It is approved and promulgated by me in this Apostolic Letter and thus becomes the definitive text of the aforementioned Catechism. This is occurring about five years after the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum of October 11, 1992, which, on the 30th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, accompanied the publication of the first, French-language text of the Catechism
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081997_laetamur_en.html

Ironically, I cannot get the French text of Laetamur Magnopere.

Btw, on the Orthodox "having no claim," I'll repeat I remember a priest in Ukraine being interviewed when things started opening up in the early 90s. He was at a church that the Moscow Patriarchate had just build, part of the trickle before the flood with the waning days of Communism. At a service he switched the commemoration from the Patriarch of Moscow to the pope of Rome, telling the interviewer "I hear the confessions. I know my people." Evidently not all, as the service was interupted by members of the congregations reproaching him. Now whose church is that?

There evidently was quite a bit of churches and monasteries involved, because the concessions that the Orthodox were able to get out of the Polish goverment mentioned them. And during the period between the Wars, tens of thousands joined the Orthodox Church, without the government forcing them. But the new Czech government has given all their properties to the Vatican.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #144 on: July 24, 2009, 08:44:54 PM »


...I sincerely believe that traditionalists are much better advised to join a jurisdiction that is unambiguous rather than dissembling in its opposition to ecumenism.

Better to join an Orthodox Church than one of the True Orthodoxy jurisdictions which are all new schismatic creations of the last few decades.   The holy Fathers have sharp words to say of those who go into schism.   

The Traditional Orthodoxy Movement is firmly based on the ecumencal principle of "The Invisible Church."    But all its branches are separated by warring episcopates and a lack of intercommunion.  It seems very Protestant.   If you choose to join one or other of these sectarian jurisdictions you wil find that your communion choices are extremely limited - for example, you may commune in the parishes under Archbishop Agathangel but nowhere else since he sees the rest of the True Orthodoxy Movement as a graceless sham.  Ditto for many of the other bishops in the True Orthodox Movement, whether in Greece or Russia or America.  It is a jungle world of warring bishops.

Hardly in the last few decades. In Greece and Romania the True Orthodox movement began when many of the people of those countries refused to accept the calendar change in 1924; likewise the Bulgarian TO movement began when they changed the calendar in 1968. In Russia it began in 1927 when many of the Orthodox people of Russia and the Russian exiles refused to accept the authority of Met Sergius and the Soviet government. In Serbia it can be said to have begun when German was uncanonically made Patriarch under government pressure in 1965 and led the Serbian church into the WCC, although as far as I know there was not a significant TO presence in Serbia until recently: to that extent you are right that it is a recent thing. It is actually rather interesting that the Old Calendarists in Greece, and the Catacomb Church in Russia, both independently came upon the name True Orthodox to describe themselves.

True Orthodoxy is not recent, although some of the administrative divisions are. A lot of the divisions can be attributed to persecution: e.g. in Russia Catacomb groups lost contact with each other since they had to pray and work in secret, hence they lost central organization. Some of them do seem to arise out of personal quarrels, such as the schisms in the TOC of Greece in the 70s, though most of the OCists in Greece are now together under one Synod again (Abp Chrysostomos). But it's not as if your side is immune to such divisions: the EP still doesn't recognize the OCA, the Ukrainian Church is hopelessly split up, the MP and the EP are constantly bickering over jurisdiction in Eastern Europe etc.

In most cases, True Orthodoxy didn't began when people woke up and said 'gee I don't like this ecumenism business; let's separate!'. It actually began when ecumenism was being shoved down their throats, i.e. the calendar changes. So you can argue the situation is a little more ambiguous for those churches that didn't accept calendar changes, e.g. the MP, Serbia. The whole sergianism issue in Russia I already explained in earlier posts and it was originally a separate thing, not really understood outside Russia even among the Old Calendarists, though after the MP entered the WCC the two issues started to come together. Also the fact that the MP maintained communion only with the New Calendarists gave the Old Calendarists some idea of whose side they were on. As for the anti-sergianists in ROCA, they often didn't appreciate the struggles of the traditionalists in Greece at first, though eventually they ended up (mostly) on our side, when they officially recognized our bishops in 1969 and entered into communion with us.

I can certainly understand why people would be more hesitant to take action when nothing was being forced on them in particular, though this goes more for those who are genuinely unaware of what the hierarchs are doing. If you know about ecumenism, and you know that it's heretical, then it's harder to justify staying in jurisdictions that are involved with it. Ideally, everyone who recognizes the heresy of ecumenism should break communion with ecumenists and join communion with anti-ecumenists. Reality is messy, though. There are anti-ecumenists in the official churches. Some of them support us, and we generally try to stay friends with them, although ultimately we can't approve of their position. For instance, two years ago we held a conference about ecumenism in Chicago. Both Old Calendarists and New Calendarists were there. Bishop Artemije was there; as far as I know he privately supports the Old Calendar Church in Greece, even though the position of the Serbian Patriarchate is with the New Calendarists. The Jerusalem Patriarchate has also often had an ambiguous stance, especially under the last two patriarchs Dorotheus and Irineus; though officially they were in communion with the New Calendar Church, on an unofficial level they gave the Old Calendarists much support and were against ecumenism (Dorotheus took Jerusalem out of the WCC).

The whole thing about not being in communion with ecumenism is not a trivial issue, but at the same time it's not the central issue. The central issue is combating ecumenism. So traditionalists in the official churches can be said to be on the right side in that sense. But we believe that the only way to _effectively_ combat ecumenism is to sever communion with it. 'Struggling from within' is not a patristic concept as far as I know; I'm not sure you could find any of the Fathers counseling that, though I'd be interested if you found something.

I happen to think the business about the presence of grace in the official churches has been blown out of proportion. Partly this is due to over-zealous members of our own church in Greece. We know the Fathers teach that one must sever communion with heretics. We know they teach that heretics and schismatics are cut off from the church and deprived of the sanctifying Grace of the Mysteries. But it's not always clear to us when precisely the schism and the loss of grace occurs. The first episcopal leader of our movement, Chrysostomos of Florina, had some private doubts about the issue and this scandalized a zealous minority of us, who separated and became the Matthewites. The last metropolitan of our church in America gave communion to new calendarists, which scandalized more zealous old calendarists who were in ROCA's jurisdiction as well as in Greece. Our Synod has a strict position towards the New Calendar Church: we have declared them schismatic, since we recognize the force of the anathemas against the Western Calendar (both the Pascalion and the Menologion). In matter of fact, we have made no declaration about churches outside Greece. But whether or not we allow communion with them depends on what their own position is. So we aren't in communion with the MP partly because the MP chooses to have communion with the new calendarists. At least that is how the situation developed historically.

Sorry this was kind of rambling, but I wanted to thresh out a lot of the thoughts I've been having on this issue and how to present it to genuine conservative in a sympathetic way.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,926



« Reply #145 on: July 24, 2009, 09:01:05 PM »

So wait... Is it canonical or non-canonical? (Old Calendarists/True Orthodoxy)

On ecumenism:

I welcome dialogue and talk with Catholics, Protestants & Orientals. If reunion is to be sought, it needs to be thought of as long-term and only acceptable with the other side renouncing the false beliefs that they hold, and completely accepting Orthodoxy. It should also not be an effort by one lone hierarch/Patriarch.

Also, we must remember that in the history of the Orthodox Church, Pagan religious aspects WERE Christianized. In the same manner, I can see non-Orthodox aspects becoming changed and made Orthodox. This DOES NOT mean accepting them as-is, but rather accepting in a conciliar manner, studying them and the canons and our theology, and making sure they are completely Orthodox upon their acceptance.

Alltogether, I believe that any decisions MUST be made by the Church as a whole and cannot be the effort of only one or two hierarchs. There needs to be more dialogue and communication between our Patriarchs. There needs to be a Council that addressed ALL these issues. For example, if Patriarch Bartholomew wants to enter dialogue with the Pope, he should only do so upon speaking with the other Patriarchs and upon also speaking with his own Bishops. Each individual church (that is, Patriarchate/"Jurisdiction") ought to hold Councils at least every 4-5 years in their respective countries/centers.

In the end, it all needs to be a conciliar & united effort. Dialogue WITHIN the Church is far more important than dialogue with those outside the Church. If we don't have unity & dialogue within, how can we expect these non-Orthodox groups to look at us and see the true Church?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2009, 09:14:45 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #146 on: July 24, 2009, 09:15:26 PM »

So wait... Is it canonical or non-canonical? (Old Calendarists/True Orthodoxy)

LOL well it depends who you talk to! Obviously the State Church of Greece doesn't think so; they think we're schismatics. But the Russian Church Abroad recognized us in 1969. So if you believe one, we're not canonical. If you believe the other, we are. Take your pick.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,926



« Reply #147 on: July 24, 2009, 09:26:28 PM »

How about you? Do you see yourself as a part of the Orthodox Church? (Including the Church of Greece and the EP) Can you receive communion at any Orthodox Church?

What do the majority of Orthodox Churches say? Like the MP, Antioch, Jerusalem, Georgia and others?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2009, 09:26:53 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #148 on: July 24, 2009, 09:48:41 PM »

How about you? Do you see yourself as a part of the Orthodox Church? (Including the Church of Greece and the EP) Can you receive communion at any Orthodox Church?

What do the majority of Orthodox Churches say? Like the MP, Antioch, Jerusalem, Georgia and others?

yes I do see myself as part of the Orthodox Church. I believe the Old Calendar Church is the true Church of Greece. As I said, the ROCA saw as in the Church, but the MP (the one founded in 1943) did not. Antioch at first supported us, but in 1941 they switched sides and changed the calendar. Jerusalem as I said seemed to sit on the fence; right now they do not support us. Georgia I don't know, but I believe they are with the New Calendarists now (most of the churches in ex-communist countries turned against us eventually).

If you want to determine what to think of us based on a simple majority of those who call themselves Orthodox, then you will think we are not canonical. But you should know that the true Church has never been determined by majority vote. During older controversies, like Arianism, Monotheletism and Iconoclasm, the majority of the 'official' hierarchies turned against the Truth, but the Truth was eventually vindicated nevertheless. Although again we are in a minority, but again I believe we will be vindicated.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,926



« Reply #149 on: July 24, 2009, 09:53:47 PM »

While Arianism was a heresy and was believed by most of the church in it's day (Athanasius contra mundum), the issue was still resolved through Councils... My opinion goes where the Church goes, hopefully soon with a council it will be resolved one way or the other...
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #150 on: July 24, 2009, 09:58:51 PM »


yes I do see myself as part of the Orthodox Church. I believe the Old Calendar Church is the true Church of Greece.

But there is NO Old Calendar Church of Greece.  Instead there is a continuing succession of multiple Churches whose bishops go into schism from one another, create new schisms and excommunicate one another.  It is an extremely unhealthy situation and nothing at all like the canonical order which prevails in Orthodoxy. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of unity seems absent.  I am sure that Orthodoxwiki will have an article which will provide details for what I have written here.

Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,942


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #151 on: July 24, 2009, 11:25:30 PM »

I don't know of Orthodox celebrating the synods of the commisars as legitimate synods.
Please inform me about the celebrations in the 90's over the communist synods.

That would have been 1982 and the MPs celebration of the pseudo-synod of Lviv, replete with the publication of the acts of the "synod".

LOL. Seems you don't know your catechism as well as you think, deacon.

APOSTOLIC LETTER
LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE
IN WHICH THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
IS APPROVED AND PROMULGATED

IT IS A CAUSE FOR GREAT JOY THAT THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS BEING PUBLISHED.

It is approved and promulgated by me in this Apostolic Letter and thus becomes the definitive text of the aforementioned Catechism. This is occurring about five years after the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum of October 11, 1992, which, on the 30th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, accompanied the publication of the first, French-language text of the Catechism

Provisional Latin and French texts were published in 92.  Please see Fidei Depositum:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19921011_fidei-depositum_en.html
In 93 the first Latin typical edition was published.
In 97 a revised Latin typical edition was published.  No Romanian edition was published in 92 so your story still doesn't wash.

(btw, was in Philadelphia this month, after the consecration of the bishop of Pittsburgh.  Was drawn to a golden Cross crowned dome, and found out that it was the Brest's local chapter, with the dates in mosaic with the Vatican symbols on the front.  BEAUTIFUL building, but what it represents, well....sort of like the Dome of the Rock on that score).

I have noticed you refuse to refer to the Latin Catholic Church by anything other than the Vatican.  And now you refer to Ukrainian Greek Catholics as the local chapter of Brest and compare them to Islam?  Until you can muster the courtesy to refer to Latin and Greek Catholic Churches by their proper title consider this the last exchange between yourself and me.  I will continue to point out your misinformation to others however.

Fr. Deacon Lance
« Last Edit: July 24, 2009, 11:26:46 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #152 on: July 25, 2009, 01:40:38 AM »

I don't know of Orthodox celebrating the synods of the commisars as legitimate synods.
Please inform me about the celebrations in the 90's over the communist synods.

That would have been 1982 and the MPs celebration of the pseudo-synod of Lviv, replete with the publication of the acts of the "synod".

That would have been 36 years, a rather odd year to celebrate.
Quote
The Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church (MP) says that there is a possibility to canonise Fr Gavriil Kostelnik (1886-1948), who initiated the council with the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church that led to the unification of Uniates and Orthodox in 1946. The UAOC (MP) has begun to study the appropriate documentation, Archbishop Avgustin of Lvov and Galicia said, as cited in Religious Information Service of the Ukraine on Monday.

“According to our procedure of canonisation, a Martyr truly had to suffer for Christ or for the Church, but, not to die by chance. Moreover, he shouldn’t be a heretic or a schismatic. As for the Righteous, the Reverend Fathers, evidence of their sanctity of life and authority is necessary. Kostelnik is somewhere in the middle between a Martyr and a Righteous”, Vladyki Avgustin said during a press conference in Lvov. He noted that the main task today is to explain some of Father Gavriil’s complex theological formulas and to examine his positions on a number of questions. According to Archbishop Avgustin, the process of canonisation will last at least a year. “Firstly, it is necessary to study all the details and only then to suggest his name to the Commission on Canonisation and to the Holy Synod”, he explained.

On 19-20 September, the Diocese of Lvov of the UAOC (MP) celebrated the 60th anniversary of the murder of Fr Gavriil. Fr Gavriil was at first a priest of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, but, then, he converted to Orthodoxy on 23 February 1946, being received by Metropolitan Ioann of Kiev. He was the ideological heir of the Galician-Russian confessors of Orthodoxy who were killed in concentration camps during the First World War by the Hapsburg authorities. Fr Gavriil was the organiser of the Lvov Council of 1946, where it was decided to abrogate the decisions of the Uniate Council of Brest of 1596, where the Uniates resolved to “break with the Vatican and to return to the native Orthodox faith”.

In July 1948, Fr Gavriil took an active part in the celebrations in Moscow on the occasion of the 500th anniversary of the autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church. On 20 September 1948, after liturgy in the Holy Transfiguration Cathedral in Lvov, on the way home, he was killed by two shots from a pistol. The murderer was surrounded by a crowd of believers, but, he shot himself. Vasili Pankov, Fr Gavriil’s killer, was a member of a terrorist group led by Roman Shukhevich, the chief of the so-called “Ukrainian Insurgent Army” (UPA) (Roman Shukhevich collaborated with the Nazis and was an SS officer in World War II, and he was convicted of murder in pre-war Poland. The UPA was a Galician al Qaeda. When you support “Ukrainian nationalism”, you support such bestiality. Editor’s note.).
http://02varvara.wordpress.com/2008/09/27/fr-gavriil-kostelnik-the-initiator-of-the-1946-union-of-the-ukrainian-greek-catholic-church-with-the-mp-could-be-canonised/
http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=news&div=26605

googling "Celebration of synod of Lviv 1946" did bring this up:
Quote
1982

400th Anniversary of the birth of St. Josaphat

July 17: St. Josaphat's relics are clothed in new vestments and a bronze mask, donated by the Canadian Province
http://www.stnicholaschurch.ca/content_pages/osbm/art_osbm.timeline.005.htm

Perhaps the reprint of the acts of Lviv (if they were reprinted) was someone's idea of celebrating the birth of someone known as "the Malevolent."

LOL. Seems you don't know your catechism as well as you think, deacon.

APOSTOLIC LETTER
LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE
IN WHICH THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
IS APPROVED AND PROMULGATED

IT IS A CAUSE FOR GREAT JOY THAT THE LATIN TYPICAL EDITION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS BEING PUBLISHED.

It is approved and promulgated by me in this Apostolic Letter and thus becomes the definitive text of the aforementioned Catechism. This is occurring about five years after the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum of October 11, 1992, which, on the 30th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, accompanied the publication of the first, French-language text of the Catechism

Provisional Latin and French texts were published in 92.  Please see Fidei Depositum:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19921011_fidei-depositum_en.html
In 93 the first Latin typical edition was published.
In 97 a revised Latin typical edition was published.  No Romanian edition was published in 92 so your story still doesn't wash.

And your source on the Romanian edition?

http://books.google.com/books?id=uYasGwAACAAJ&dq=catehismul+bisericii+catolice

I know that the French was published before the Latin edition: I have a copy of the French text before and after, and I remember Mother Angelica speaking about the French version coming out in 1992, and the reason she gave was that French was the working language of the committe putting it together.  It was in a conversation when the Vatican approved altar girls, and she coupled that with the catechism as something like a bicycle and a car in the garage.  The English itself came before and after the Latin (typica).

I also still have the brochure that was being handed out on the catechism in Bucharest.  I'm going to storage this week, Lord willing: if I come across it, I'll post a scan.

I'll admit, I didn't look at the thing when I was in Bucharest in '92: I didn't speak Romanian, and had to ask what it was about.  I'll seen the brochure several times since learning Romanian in '93.

(btw, was in Philadelphia this month, after the consecration of the bishop of Pittsburgh.  Was drawn to a golden Cross crowned dome, and found out that it was the Brest's local chapter, with the dates in mosaic with the Vatican symbols on the front.  BEAUTIFUL building, but what it represents, well....sort of like the Dome of the Rock on that score).

I have noticed you refuse to refer to the Latin Catholic Church by anything other than the Vatican. 

No indeed: I refer to the Church of SS. Damasus, Gregory, Leo (I and III), John Cassian, Benedict, etc. all the time as the Latin Catholic Orthodox Church.

For the Vatican, I use Ultramontanist often enough.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.0.html

Quote
And now you refer to Ukrainian Greek Catholics as the local chapter of Brest and compare them to Islam?  Until you can muster the courtesy to refer to Latin and Greek Catholic Churches by their proper title consider

Pro-choice?

Quote
this the last exchange between yourself and me.  I will continue to point out your misinformation to others however.

I was just about to say that.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2009, 01:47:00 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #153 on: July 25, 2009, 01:55:10 AM »


...I sincerely believe that traditionalists are much better advised to join a jurisdiction that is unambiguous rather than dissembling in its opposition to ecumenism.

Better to join an Orthodox Church than one of the True Orthodoxy jurisdictions which are all new schismatic creations of the last few decades.   The holy Fathers have sharp words to say of those who go into schism.   

The Traditional Orthodoxy Movement is firmly based on the ecumencal principle of "The Invisible Church."    But all its branches are separated by warring episcopates and a lack of intercommunion.  It seems very Protestant.   If you choose to join one or other of these sectarian jurisdictions you wil find that your communion choices are extremely limited - for example, you may commune in the parishes under Archbishop Agathangel but nowhere else since he sees the rest of the True Orthodoxy Movement as a graceless sham.  Ditto for many of the other bishops in the True Orthodox Movement, whether in Greece or Russia or America.  It is a jungle world of warring bishops.

Hardly in the last few decades. In Greece and Romania the True Orthodox movement began when many of the people of those countries refused to accept the calendar change in 1924; likewise the Bulgarian TO movement began when they changed the calendar in 1968. In Russia it began in 1927 when many of the Orthodox people of Russia and the Russian exiles refused to accept the authority of Met Sergius and the Soviet government. In Serbia it can be said to have begun when German was uncanonically made Patriarch under government pressure in 1965 and led the Serbian church into the WCC, although as far as I know there was not a significant TO presence in Serbia until recently: to that extent you are right that it is a recent thing. It is actually rather interesting that the Old Calendarists in Greece, and the Catacomb Church in Russia, both independently came upon the name True Orthodox to describe themselves.

True Orthodoxy is not recent, although some of the administrative divisions are. A lot of the divisions can be attributed to persecution: e.g. in Russia Catacomb groups lost contact with each other since they had to pray and work in secret, hence they lost central organization. Some of them do seem to arise out of personal quarrels, such as the schisms in the TOC of Greece in the 70s, though most of the OCists in Greece are now together under one Synod again (Abp Chrysostomos). But it's not as if your side is immune to such divisions: the EP still doesn't recognize the OCA,

as autocephalous. That is way different from the EP stating the OCA is graceless and excommunicate.


Quote
the Ukrainian Church is hopelessly split up, the MP and the EP are constantly bickering over jurisdiction in Eastern Europe etc.

Yet everyone (except splinters like some of the Ukrainians, etc) are in communion with each other.

Quote
In most cases, True Orthodoxy didn't began when people woke up and said 'gee I don't like this ecumenism business; let's separate!'. It actually began when ecumenism was being shoved down their throats, i.e. the calendar changes. So you can argue the situation is a little more ambiguous for those churches that didn't accept calendar changes, e.g. the MP, Serbia. The whole sergianism issue in Russia I already explained in earlier posts and it was originally a separate thing, not really understood outside Russia even among the Old Calendarists, though after the MP entered the WCC the two issues started to come together. Also the fact that the MP maintained communion only with the New Calendarists gave the Old Calendarists some idea of whose side they were on. As for the anti-sergianists in ROCA, they often didn't appreciate the struggles of the traditionalists in Greece at first, though eventually they ended up (mostly) on our side, when they officially recognized our bishops in 1969 and entered into communion with us.

Yes, it seems ROCA has had its act together all along, until today.

Quote
I can certainly understand why people would be more hesitant to take action when nothing was being forced on them in particular, though this goes more for those who are genuinely unaware of what the hierarchs are doing. If you know about ecumenism, and you know that it's heretical, then it's harder to justify staying in jurisdictions that are involved with it. Ideally, everyone who recognizes the heresy of ecumenism should break communion with ecumenists and join communion with anti-ecumenists. Reality is messy, though. There are anti-ecumenists in the official churches. Some of them support us, and we generally try to stay friends with them, although ultimately we can't approve of their position. For instance, two years ago we held a conference about ecumenism in Chicago. Both Old Calendarists and New Calendarists were there. Bishop Artemije was there; as far as I know he privately supports the Old Calendar Church in Greece, even though the position of the Serbian Patriarchate is with the New Calendarists. The Jerusalem Patriarchate has also often had an ambiguous stance, especially under the last two patriarchs Dorotheus and Irineus; though officially they were in communion with the New Calendar Church, on an unofficial level they gave the Old Calendarists much support and were against ecumenism (Dorotheus took Jerusalem out of the WCC).

The whole thing about not being in communion with ecumenism is not a trivial issue,

neither is not being in communion with anyone.


Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,166


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #154 on: July 25, 2009, 02:06:23 AM »


PtA, it is not necessary to look for cached websites which may or may not exist. I invite Fr Anastasios, in the interest of maintaining rigor on this forum (something we are all urged and expected to do) to give us examples from said websites which show this tendency to "preserve Russianness" at the expense of upholding the truths of Orthodoxy.

Sure, I'll be happy to. And if I am wrong or can't prove it, I will retract the statement.

*BUMP*
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #155 on: July 25, 2009, 02:50:19 AM »

In Serbia it can be said to have begun when German was uncanonically made Patriarch under government pressure in 1965 and led the Serbian church into the WCC, although as far as I know there was not a significant TO presence in Serbia until recently.

Strange no one knows about any TO in Serbia before 2004/2005, given that "the uncanonical" (?) Patriarch German was discharged in 1989 (due to illness), and reposed in 1990.

'Struggling from within' is not a patristic concept as far as I know; I'm not sure you could find any of the Fathers counseling that, though I'd be interested if you found something.

Since you didn't know about St. Mark of Efesus, I am not surprised you know neither about St. Maximos the Confessor, St. Theodore the Studite and St. Nectarios of Aegina.

Finaly, in post #139 above, I asked you to tell us what would be the proper way of "canceling" statements and documents of WCC that MP/World Orthodoxy have signed.

I am looking forward to your answer, and there is a chance I am not the only one.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #156 on: July 25, 2009, 03:23:00 PM »

In Serbia it can be said to have begun when German was uncanonically made Patriarch under government pressure in 1965 and led the Serbian church into the WCC, although as far as I know there was not a significant TO presence in Serbia until recently.

Strange no one knows about any TO in Serbia before 2004/2005, given that "the uncanonical" (?) Patriarch German was discharged in 1989 (due to illness), and reposed in 1990.

'Struggling from within' is not a patristic concept as far as I know; I'm not sure you could find any of the Fathers counseling that, though I'd be interested if you found something.

Since you didn't know about St. Mark of Efesus, I am not surprised you know neither about St. Maximos the Confessor, St. Theodore the Studite and St. Nectarios of Aegina.

Finaly, in post #139 above, I asked you to tell us what would be the proper way of "canceling" statements and documents of WCC that MP/World Orthodoxy have signed.

I am looking forward to your answer, and there is a chance I am not the only one.


St Maximus is one example you don't want to appeal to, since he totally undermines your case. The following is from his Life:

When the Monothelete bishop Theodosius asked St. Maximus the Confessor why he had cut himself off from communion with see of Constantinople, the saint replied,

In the sixth indiction of the last cycle, Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexendria, published the Nine Chapters [stating that Christ had but a single energy,] which were approved by the see of Constantinople. Soon the novelties proposed in that document were followed by others, overturning the definitions of holy councils. These innovations were devised by primates of the Church of Constantinople: Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul, as all the other Churches know very well. This is the reason I, your servant, am not in communion with the throne of Constantinople. Let the offenses introduced by those men be rejected and the abettors deposed; then the way to salvation will be cleared, and you will walk the smooth path of the Gospel unhindered by heresy. When I see the Church of Constantinople walking as she was formerly, I shall enter into communion with her uncompelled, but as long as the scandal of heresy persists in her and her bishops are miscreants, no argument or persecution will win me over to your side.

On another occasion the Eparch of Constantinople asked St. Maximus, "Will you enter into communion with our Church, or not?"

"I will not," said the saint.

"Why?" asked the Eparch.

"Because it has rejected the rulings of Orthodox councils," said Maximus.

The Eparch continued, "If that be so, how is it that the fathers of those councils remain in the diptychs of our Church?"

"How do you profit by commemorating them, when you renounce their doctrines?" countered the saint.

I would think that the way to 'cancel' those documents would be perfectly obvious from my previous posts, but I'll spell it out for you again. Leave the WCC, have the Patriarch and Synod uncategorically reject all statements signed there, and sever communion with jurisdictions that are members.

About the election of Patriarch German: I made an error, since he was actually elected in 1958, but in 1965 he took the church into the WCC. The communist government openly pressured the Synod to have him elected, which under the strict interpretation of the canons is illicit, since the secular authorities are not meant to put pressure on canonical elections. Now of course you have the situation in late tsarist Russia and the Church under Turkish rule, and you would have a point. But Serbian churches in America in fact did break communion with the patriarchate over this interference in the 60s.

Here's an interesting piece of history about the ROCA's attitude to the SP:

The attitude of the Russian Church Abroad towards the Serbian Church now began to change. Thus on September 14/27, 1967, Archbishop Averky of Jordanville wrote to Metropolitan Philaret: “With regard to the question of the Serbian Church, whose Patriarch German is a stooge of the communist Tito, as the Serbs themselves are convinced, calling him ‘the red patriarch’. We have heard this from many clergy and laity who have fled from Serbia. How can we recognize, and have communion in prayer with, ‘the red patriarch’, who maintains the closest friendly relations with red Moscow? Cannot our Hierarchical Council make erroneous decisions? Do we in the Orthodox Church have a doctrine about the infallibility of every Council of Bishops?”

Archbishop Averky’s attitude to the Serbs was confirmed by the ROCOR Council of Bishops in 1967, which resolved to annul the resolution of the Council of Bishops in 1964 on the preservation of prayerful communion with the hierarchy of the Serbian Orthodox Church.[21]

 

     Early in 1970, Metropolitan Philaret announced to the members of the ROCOR Synod that since the Serbian Patriarch German had chosen to serve as Chairman of the World Council of Churches, ROCOR should avoid joint prayer and service with him, while at the same time not making a major demonstration of the fact.[22]This act appears to have had some influence in Serbia: in 1971, Archimandrite Justin broke off relations with the Serbian patriarch, while retaining contacts with the other bishops.[23]When Fr. Justin died on March 25, 1979, the patriarch did not attend his funeral…

 

     In November, 1994 Bishop Artemije of Raska and Prizren, in a memorandum to the Serbian Synod, said that ecumenism was an ecclesiological heresy, and that the Serbs should withdraw from the WCC.[24]More recently, in 2005, he wrote: “The result of this participation [of the Serbs in the WCC] was reflected in certain material aid which the Serbian Orthodox Church periodically received from the WCC in the form of medicine, medical care and rehabilitation of some individuals in Switzerland, student scholarships, and financial donations for certain concrete purposes and needs of the SOC, such as the construction of a new building by the Theological School. We paid for these crumbs of material assistance by losing, on the spiritual plane, the purity of our faith, canonical consistency and faithfulness to the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church.

 

     “The presence of our representatives (and Orthodox representatives in general) at various and sundry ecumenical gatherings has no canonical justification. We did not go there in order to boldly, openly and unwaveringly confess the eternal and unchangeable Truth of the Orthodox Faith and Church, but in order to make compromises and to agree more or less to all those decisions and formulations offered to us by the non-Orthodox. That is how we ultimately arrived at Balamand, Chambésy and Assisi, which taken as a whole represent infidelity and betrayal of the Holy Orthodox Faith.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #157 on: July 25, 2009, 03:35:01 PM »


yes I do see myself as part of the Orthodox Church. I believe the Old Calendar Church is the true Church of Greece.

But there is NO Old Calendar Church of Greece.  Instead there is a continuing succession of multiple Churches whose bishops go into schism from one another, create new schisms and excommunicate one another.  It is an extremely unhealthy situation and nothing at all like the canonical order which prevails in Orthodoxy. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of unity seems absent.  I am sure that Orthodoxwiki will have an article which will provide details for what I have written here.



I just explained to you that the situation is not one of many equally sized factions fighting each other, but one group comprising the overwhelming majority and a few tiny break-away factions. You might have corrected me on some points of fact, but instead you counter with these bald assertions which indicate that you have completely failed to comprehend what I just told you. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

For what it's worth, here is the link to the OrthodoxWiki page on the True Orthodox:

http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/True_Orthodox
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #158 on: July 25, 2009, 04:18:49 PM »


PtA, it is not necessary to look for cached websites which may or may not exist. I invite Fr Anastasios, in the interest of maintaining rigor on this forum (something we are all urged and expected to do) to give us examples from said websites which show this tendency to "preserve Russianness" at the expense of upholding the truths of Orthodoxy.

Sure, I'll be happy to. And if I am wrong or can't prove it, I will retract the statement.

*BUMP*

I was planning on getting to it today, which is why I just logged on the forum.  I do, in fact, have duties as a priest that involve extensive traveling to missionize in rural areas that cannot afford a full time priest. This is in addition to my full time work as a computer network engineer and spending time with my family. So I am sorry that I was not able to get to something that in the scheme of things is rather unimportant, quick enough.

My post will be coming soon after I have had sufficient time to analyze the evidence.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2009, 04:19:38 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #159 on: July 25, 2009, 04:23:01 PM »

Basically, the bigger point for our ROCOR friends is this. If you honestly think that the ROCOR was right to join the MP, and that we GOC members (the Church that your bishops gave a hierarchy to) are wrong to not have followed your lead, then go ahead and get the MP out of the WCC, get the OCA to stop teaching ecumenism at its seminaries, get the EP to stop praying in various states of vesting with the Pope, and get an ecumenical council called to restore the Church calendar in the Greek Churches. Then, perhaps, you will have set the example for us to follow.


Why don't you Greeks do these things with the EP?

We do, but we don't get much traction since we are "graceless schismatic uncanonical fanatics who are outside the Church." My point was since you are of one body with the Greek new calendarists, perhaps you could lend a hand if you really care about the situation being resolved.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #160 on: July 25, 2009, 04:24:03 PM »


Gievn the immense theological corpus of blessed Father Justin it amounts to more than "anecdotes."

We could spend all day arguing over who's the holier person. I think that would be a waste of time, or whose example is more theologically important. But in order to win that battle, we'd eventually have to discount the other side. And I am not willing to say anything negative against Fr Justin, even if I disagree with his stance on this issue.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2009, 04:25:03 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #161 on: July 25, 2009, 04:29:58 PM »


Your holy bishops in ROCOR gave us a hierarchy and entered communion with us as a sister Church.

Which, according to Jonathan's guilt by association theory, made you "members of the WCC."

Were you aware of your WCC membership while you were in communion with the Russian Church Abroad?  Wink

That's actually a clever dig, and I give you credit for that.  Cool

Part of the problem during all of this was that different people were getting told different things, and that may have been indicative of a cleveage between bishops of the ROCOR Synod. So our GOC bishops were handed documents like the Sorrowful Epistles and told, "of course we don't recognize World Orthodoxy" and people like Archbishop Leonty wrote us letters saying things like, "I am not in communion with Patriarch German of Serbia."  But Bp Ambrose of Geneva was concelebrating with New Calendarists and the Serbs. Eventually this contributed (along with some stupid actions of our former Archbishop Auentios vis-a-vis Gabriel of Lisbon) to an estrangement between the GOC and ROCOR.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #162 on: July 25, 2009, 04:36:09 PM »



I think that may have been related with the fact that we are still waiting for the proof of increased "Russianism" ("Russkiness"?) and decreased Orthodoxy on ROCOR's web-sites during the last three years. But that's just my opinion.

I'd like to remind participants that I intentionally do not interact with this poster.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2009, 04:37:33 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #163 on: July 25, 2009, 05:12:10 PM »

As for the matter of ecumenism, if the joint prayer meetings of the EP with heterodox, which are EGREGIOUS canonical infractions, don't already impress you with the gravity of the situation, I honestly don't know what will. If the communion between Antioch and the non-Chalcedonians seems unimportant, what does seem important then? The True Orthodox, first in Greece and then in Russia, have been watching the whole ecumenical movement from the outside and I think we have a different perspective. The conservatives in your jurisdictions turn a blind eye to every new infraction, but every little concession the ecumenists make is blown out of all proportion. Certainly events like the Thessalonica conference, condemning SOME aspects of Orthodox participation in the WCC, are welcome as far as they go, but that's the thing: they don't go very far. That conference is now ten years old and hasn't resulted in the withdrawal of any jurisdictions (I think; Bulgaria and Georgia had already withdrawn, though they are still in communion with the ecumenists). For your part (assuming you are conservatives and basically agree with us that ecumenism is a heresy), you give your hierarchs the benefit of the doubt (and my what doubt!), whereas we give them the burden of proof. We say: "if you truly love Orthodoxy, renounce ecumenism unreservedly and we will join you gladly!". We're still waiting.

Brother, I think you have misread me or do not understand where I am coming from....Allow me to pose a Hypothetical Situation for you.

As a child, you are raised in a Protestant household. Your Father and Mother are pious people who pray, go to church, and actively lead lives that outshine even some Orthodox believers, and believe in the Trinity as God. They do not disagree with the Nicene Creed. 
You as a Protestant Christian, realize something is missing though from the depth of the teachings you were raised in, and so you begin to search. When you come upon Orthodoxy and see it in it's fullness, you openly recieve it and are baptized in the faith.

Now, much older, you still have a relationship with your parents. They have watched how Orthodoxy has changed you, given you something they do not have, though they can't admit it yet. But they still consider you as one of their own, family. Even their closest friends and relatives, also born in their faith still look at you as one of them.

Suddenly tragedy strikes within your family and they call you or ask you to come over. While visiting them, your Father or a dear friend of theirs (it does not matter which) begins to pray to God - which they understand as The Holy Trinity - in the name of Jesus that He grant mercy and forgiveness, healing and repentance for your family. He does not see the divide you see, but you do. You are now Orthodox. You see the small rifts and the big ones within your beliefs. You know about the seperations that happened in History.

Should you stop up your ears and not pray too? Should you let these divisions keep you from praying to God for the benefit of His people, with them? Should you hold these divisions against them? Should you not speak to them? Should you allow your Full understanding or their incomplete or incorrect understanding of the Sacraments of the church be a wall which seperates you?

Or should you pray with them? Should you even begin to lead the prayer? Should you look past the differences to the similarities? Should you council them? Should you do everything you can to assist your family and dear friends in this tragedy and work with them to a common goal? Should you be an example and a light unto them, worshipping in the fullness of faith which you have found?


Quote inserted to give context, for I am about to move this post and a few more to another, more appropriate location  -PtA

beautiful hypotethis.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,166


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #164 on: July 25, 2009, 05:16:09 PM »



I think that may have been related with the fact that we are still waiting for the proof of increased "Russianism" ("Russkiness"?) and decreased Orthodoxy on ROCOR's web-sites during the last three years. But that's just my opinion.

I'd like to remind participants that I intentionally do not interact with this poster.

Why not? Are you afraid of what he might say?
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #165 on: July 25, 2009, 05:25:01 PM »



I think that may have been related with the fact that we are still waiting for the proof of increased "Russianism" ("Russkiness"?) and decreased Orthodoxy on ROCOR's web-sites during the last three years. But that's just my opinion.

I'd like to remind participants that I intentionally do not interact with this poster.

Why not? Are you afraid of what he might say?

No.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,166


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #166 on: July 25, 2009, 05:29:06 PM »

I'd like to remind participants that I intentionally do not interact with this poster.

Why not? Are you afraid of what he might say?
[/quote]

No.
[/quote]

So why refuse to interact with him?
« Last Edit: July 25, 2009, 05:31:06 PM by LBK » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #167 on: July 25, 2009, 05:38:41 PM »


Quote
Why not? Are you afraid of what he might say?

No.

So why refuse to interact with him?
[/quote][/quote]

Purely personal reasons.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #168 on: July 25, 2009, 05:39:03 PM »


Why not? Are you afraid of what he might say?

No.

Quote
So why refuse to interact with him?

Purely personal reasons. But I feel the need to occasionally point the fact out when he tries to engage me.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2009, 05:40:26 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #169 on: July 25, 2009, 06:03:19 PM »

Dear Fr Ambrose and LBK,

I have spent roughly one hour researching the ROCOR website, both past and present, as I promised you I would.


If anybody wises to check out what Fr Anastasios says, here is ROCA's official website

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/indexeng.htm

and here is the website of the Diocese of Australia and New Zealand (Met Hilarion's diocese also)

http://www.rocor.org.au/

Please note that I was referring solely to the official Synodal website, and not the Australia website, so I will discuss the Synodal website only.

PtA, it is not necessary to look for cached websites which may or may not exist. I invite Fr Anastasios, in the interest of maintaining rigor on this forum (something we are all urged and expected to do) to give us examples from said websites which show this tendency to "preserve Russianness" at the expense of upholding the truths of Orthodoxy.

Actually, it is somewhat necessary, because sites change over time. But I will do the best I can with the information available.

Quote
I've already seen a shift in emphasis on the official ROCOR website over the past 3 years from one of being "traditionalist Orthodox" to "preserving our Russianness."
 

Fr Anastasios, I would invite you to repeat the above statement to the face of HE Metropolitan Hilarion of ROCOR.


If anybody wises to check out what Fr Anastasios says, here is ROCA's official website

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/indexeng.htm

and here is the website of the Diocese of Australia and New Zealand (Met Hilarion's diocese also)

http://www.rocor.org.au/
But neither of these sites is capable of showing at this moment what has changed over three years time.

Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that the current sites are typical of what is published.

I'm not sure I follow you; my entire contention is that over time the spirit of the site has changed, so how could it be reasonable to assume that the current site is typical of what is published? The articles section of the ROCOR website does not date its articles, although they appear to be posted in chronological order.

Quote
If someone wanted to research previous editions of these sites in previous months and years, it is possible to do this with The Wayback Machine.
http://www.archive.org/index.php

Unfortuantely, the Wayback Machine does not have any entries for russianorthodoxchurch.ws after January 2008; so it is a bit difficult to form a valid study from the time period 2008-2009.

I actually decided to go back to the start of rocor.org which appears to have been in 1998. I selected 2-3 entries per year to examine what I might find.


I considered the following entries indicative of what I might call "a traditionalist ROCOR approach"

June 1998:

from front page:

"The First Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Metropolitan Anthony, Metropolitan Anastassy, Metropolitan Philaret, and currently Metropolitan Vitaly have directed the Church through the trials and tribulations of the past 75 years until this time, when it shines as a beacon of steadfastness to the traditional teachings and canons of the Holy Church, and combats the insiduous influences of modernism and ecumenism, as well as witnessing to the entire world the persecution of the Holy Church under the Soviet regime, the sufferings of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, and denouncing the path of Metropolitan Sergius, who abandoned the path of the Holy Patriarch Tikhon, capitulated before the Godless authorities, and created the Moscow Patriarchate, which to this day follows Metropolitan Sergius's ruinous path.  "

August 2000

Special Section on Jericho Theft: http://web.archive.org/web/20000831195116/www.orthodox.net/jericho/
Epistle to the Russian People: http://web.archive.org/web/20000818004906/www.orthodox.net/roc/2000-mar-statement.html
Links to pages against the attempted theft of the Ottowa parish by the Moscow Patriarchate


October 2000

"The Sorrowful Path - The Glorious Path" http://web.archive.org/web/20001025214459/rocor.org/history/sorrowful_path.html
Link to page about MP helping recruit agent for KGB http://web.archive.org/web/20001031233636/www.orthodox.net/misc/2000-06-16-srofimoff-iriney.html

Feb 2001

Jericho and Bari theft updates: http://web.archive.org/web/20010202020400/http://rocor.org/


A change in perspective appears to occur in 2002.  From 2002, the website is redone, and it appears the news of seizures and other anti-MP articles are removed. From 2002 to 2007 it appears that the articles are of a general spiritual nature and the news articles concern visits to parishes and discussions of the commissions for unity with the MP. There are not, however, any articles that seem to promote a pan-Russianness. The last available archived page from Jan 23 for the articles section contains all articles about the union with the MP and topics of a spiritual nature.

From around late 2008/early 2009 (I cannot determine with exactitude), what we see now appearing with more frequency, however, are such articles as:

"Schools of the Russian Diaspora"
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enart_belikovrussianschools.html

"We Were Raised to Love Russia" (http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enart_papkovrussia.html)
-- Which contains a statement I find especially troubling: "How did we manage to raise children abroad? With great difficulty, because the surrounding society is not very conducive to a positive, moral upbringing. To rear means to instill a soul in a child, to try to transmit to him what is better than what you yourself have. This is very hard. It seems to me that in Russia one can raise a child more successfully."

I don't doubt his sincerity, but Americans for instance reading that might be offended or at least saddened.

"Orthodox Russians Revere the Sanctity of God's Temples"
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enart_protopopovdiscussion.html

"Granddaughters of Tsarist Russia"
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enart_tsarrus.html

Now I want to be clear that I don't have any objection to:

1) Loving one's mother country
2) Establishing schools that promote one's language
3) Discussing how a people or culture are trained to revere the Holy Temples.

But what I do find concerning is that these articles do not seem to have appeared before 2009, and yet are now increasing. To be sure, there are still generic spiritual articles being posted on the ROCOR site; I am not denying that. But my *perception* is that the most recent articles appear to be more frequently appealing to the national interest.  I would not be happy if articles like this began to appear on my Greek Old Calendarist website either, to be fair.

What my *perception* was when I made the statement is that ROCOR pre-union existed as a type of anti-revolutionary body which also contained elements of anti-modernism.  As time progressed, pro-union material increased, both theologically (I have no problem with such open discussions based on theology), and based on nationhood ("we must preserve the Russian diaspora", etc--which was precisely one argument that Bishops Paisios and Vikentios gave in their interview with Ethnikos Kyrix c. 2003 about one reason they felt they needed to rejoin the EP from the Old Calendarists--preserving Hellenism in the diaspora).  Now that ROCOR is with the MP, its focus has shifted from being an anti- or an alternative to come to be the very force that can enable the Russian diaspora to stay Russian (as opposed to say, the OCA).  As a convert and one who wishes to see greater missionary work but clearly with a traditionalist perspective, I am concerned that over time ROCOR is going to loose its traditionalist mindset and become merely an institution to preserve Russianness.

My original statement, however, was that I noticed a shift in this direction on the ROCOR website over the past 3 years.  I think I can safely say that I cannot prove this given the evidence; the trend, if it does exist in any way would be over a much longer period, and cannot even be proven to be a logical conclusion (ie. that the national focus is a product of losing a traditionalist direction).

Therefore, in the interest of fairness, honor, and intellectual honesty, I retract my statement and apologize to you two directly for mixing my concerns with what can be reasonably obtained from the posting history and evidence, which obviously caused you offense, and which I regret.

In Christ,

Fr Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #170 on: July 26, 2009, 04:32:27 PM »

...
...
...
...
Finaly, in post #139 above, I asked you to tell us what would be the proper way of "canceling" statements and documents of WCC that MP/World Orthodoxy have signed.
...

St Maximus is one example you don't want to appeal to, since he totally undermines your case. ...

Fine, but we still didn't get your stance regarding the proper way of canceling statements/documents of WCC/else that MP/World Orthodoxy have signed, something I asked for in the messages #139 and #155.

What should be done, say, by MP, which hasn't already been done prior to re-establishment of communion between ROCOR and MP, to satisfy the criteria held by Greek Old Calendarists? 
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #171 on: July 26, 2009, 05:01:52 PM »

...
...
...
...
Finaly, in post #139 above, I asked you to tell us what would be the proper way of "canceling" statements and documents of WCC that MP/World Orthodoxy have signed.
...

St Maximus is one example you don't want to appeal to, since he totally undermines your case. ...

Fine, but we still didn't get your stance regarding the proper way of canceling statements/documents of WCC/else that MP/World Orthodoxy have signed, something I asked for in the messages #139 and #155.

What should be done, say, by MP, which hasn't already been done prior to re-establishment of communion between ROCOR and MP, to satisfy the criteria held by Greek Old Calendarists? 

Clearly you didn't read the whole of my message. It was kind of long, sorry.
Logged
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,166


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #172 on: July 26, 2009, 07:38:49 PM »

My post was a satirical response solely towards your post, and not his actually.  I find your posting style, at least on this topic, unproductive, dismissive, and insulting, which is why I posted my satirical response. I really do believe you think it's simply a matter of us not being able to read properly based on how you react to documents that we already know about, assuming we've never seen them, and saying basically, "see, here it is. Now you have to admit you are wrong"--without the slightest indication that we might already know about the document and have another view.  And I would account that as an implied ad hominem towards us.

Therefore, in the interest of fairness, honor, and intellectual honesty, I retract my statement and apologize to you two directly for mixing my concerns with what can be reasonably obtained from the posting history and evidence, which obviously caused you offense, and which I regret.

In Christ,

Fr Anastasios

I welcome your apology on the matter of the ROCOR website content. However, to be fair to everyone on the forum, it would be proper for you to also retract this statement of yours from post #140 and apologise for its gratuitous and patronising content.

Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #173 on: July 26, 2009, 09:12:21 PM »

My post was a satirical response solely towards your post, and not his actually.  I find your posting style, at least on this topic, unproductive, dismissive, and insulting, which is why I posted my satirical response. I really do believe you think it's simply a matter of us not being able to read properly based on how you react to documents that we already know about, assuming we've never seen them, and saying basically, "see, here it is. Now you have to admit you are wrong"--without the slightest indication that we might already know about the document and have another view.  And I would account that as an implied ad hominem towards us.

Therefore, in the interest of fairness, honor, and intellectual honesty, I retract my statement and apologize to you two directly for mixing my concerns with what can be reasonably obtained from the posting history and evidence, which obviously caused you offense, and which I regret.

In Christ,

Fr Anastasios

I welcome your apology on the matter of the ROCOR website content. However, to be fair to everyone on the forum, it would be proper for you to also retract this statement of yours from post #140 and apologise for its gratuitous and patronising content.



LBK, I apologized for the ROCOR statement because I was wrong, and I could not prove my assertion.  This is a different issue, however.

My satirical response was not gratuitous insofar as it was in response to your dismissive posting. I could have produced a one-liner quip as you have done in the past (a la "gnats and camels", or asking me if I were afraid of another poster, etc.), but instead chose to employ satire in the hopes of getting you to see just why the two posts were offensive to others.  To restate directly without satire: to make a statement that one obviously has not read something or else they would not be continuing in their line of thought is rude, dismissive, and patronizing, if not presumptuous.  My intent was never to make fun of you, but to make light of the reason why your posting offended me and others, in the hopes that you might alter the way you choose to express yourself in such discussions.

This would not, however, be the first time you have been rude to others on this forum; for instance the incident which to my knowledge you have still not apologized for, namely this insult against our moderators, by insinuating they are spineless. It is this type of posting which has gotten me aggravated and which ultimately led me to post a satirical post.

If, however, you assure me that by posting two times now that [paraphrased] "if you would read post x or document y, you would save us a lot of consternation" you were not intending to be dismissive or patronizing, or to insinuate that your opponents' position arises out of ignorance rather than reason by virtue of not having read key documents pertinent to the discussion, and you can instead explain what you meant by such statements, then I will repent of having misjudged your intent. If you will apologize to our moderators for unfairly criticizing them (assuming you have not already done so) when they are hard working and have to deal with difficult decisions every day which do not always lend themselves to speedy and instant justice and resolution, that will also help to reestablish goodwill.

Rather than simply retract my statement on the ROCOR website issue, I chose to deliberately apologize to you personally for offending you instead of just trying to keep it general/theoretical. I wanted to specifically state this in public because I do not want to prolong animosity or further misunderstanding, and I saw this as an attempt to reach out.  I do not want there to be hard feelings between you and me. But your response, telling me that I should apologize for something as being gratuitous, without any attempt to clarify or apologize yourself for creating misunderstanding, or at least attempting to be empathetic as to why others might understand your posts to be dismissive even if that was not your intent, is unfair. I didn't wake up one day and decide to post a satirical response towards you for no good reason.

Fr Anastasios
« Last Edit: July 27, 2009, 09:56:54 AM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,166


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #174 on: July 27, 2009, 03:37:07 AM »


For those who are interested, the link to the post Fr Anastasios has provided is unfortunately incorrect. Here is the correct one, which will take you to the relevant page on the "Apostasy of ROCOR" thread. Message #330838 to which he directly refers is post #166 in this thread, about two-thirds of the way down the page.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21720.135.html
« Last Edit: July 27, 2009, 03:41:08 AM by LBK » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #175 on: July 27, 2009, 09:58:26 AM »


For those who are interested, the link to the post Fr Anastasios has provided is unfortunately incorrect. Here is the correct one, which will take you to the relevant page on the "Apostasy of ROCOR" thread. Message #330838 to which he directly refers is post #166 in this thread, about two-thirds of the way down the page.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21720.135.html

I have corrected the original link. Thank you for pointing it out.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,093


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #176 on: July 27, 2009, 03:44:24 PM »

However, to be fair to everyone on the forum, it would be proper for you to also retract this statement of yours from post #140 and apologise for its gratuitous and patronising content. 

This isn't the first time you've made a condescending "request" for an apology on this site, but this one grinds my gears.  I find Fr. Anastasios' post neither gratuitous nor patronizing, and I am saying such in a professional capacity.  If you have an issue with a post, where you think forum rules have been broken, then you should take it up with the Mod staff rather than issuing directives here in the public forum.  If your objection above is merely one of decorum, and not of rules compliance, then I suggest you cease making such "requests," as they seem to more frequently come from your keyboard than anyone else's, and seem to (in many cases) be a bit out of place.

I would also encourage you to leave matters of fairness and justice involving "everyone in the forum" to the Moderatorial or Administrative staff, as they are empowered by the owner of the site to speak on behalf of the site when appropriate, and are charged with defending the rights of "everyone in the forum."

{Personal Note}  Finally, for whatever reason it seems that your posts contain a more combative tone with Fr. Anastasios than anyone else (I could be very wrong about this - but this is my perception after having read a good number of posts). I feel that this is a mistake, as he is one of the more approachable and reasonable Old Calendarist supporters on the site.  Dialogue is more productive with him than with most others that support the same positions (viz a viz the Calendar, Ecumenism, Communism & the Church in Russia, Traditions vs Traditionalism, etc.).  While I don't discourage spirited debate, I would caution you against approaching such debate with an overly negative, dismissive, or condescending tone. {/Personal Note}

Thank you.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #177 on: July 27, 2009, 05:26:36 PM »

...
What should be done, say, by MP, which hasn't already been done prior to re-establishment of communion between ROCOR and MP, to satisfy the criteria held by Greek Old Calendarists? 

Clearly you didn't read the whole of my message. It was kind of long, sorry.

Contrary, I carefully read all your messages in this thread several times to find the answer. But there is no one. My guess is that you intentionally omitted it, to conceal the flaws in it and/or perhaps even worse, the heresy of donatism which such a stance may have born.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #178 on: July 28, 2009, 02:01:36 PM »

...
What should be done, say, by MP, which hasn't already been done prior to re-establishment of communion between ROCOR and MP, to satisfy the criteria held by Greek Old Calendarists? 

Clearly you didn't read the whole of my message. It was kind of long, sorry.

Contrary, I carefully read all your messages in this thread several times to find the answer. But there is no one. My guess is that you intentionally omitted it, to conceal the flaws in it and/or perhaps even worse, the heresy of donatism which such a stance may have born.

I did give an answer, but I think I didn't highlight it well so you missed it. I'm not blaming you.

The MP's 2000 statement on ecumenism is a welcome improvement over their previous, more radical positions, and recently the MP has voiced increasing skepticism about the ecumenical movement. Why do we still not have communion with it? I'm speaking as a member of the Greek GOC now, so I'm not going to talk about sergianism, only ecumenism, since that is the main issue for us.

Firstly, we don't take the MP's statements entirely seriously because they are contradicted by other statements of the MP. For instance, that WCC 2006 statement, which was openly syncretistic. The MP signed that through their representative Bp Hilarion of Vienna, and they have not rejected it or censured Bp Hilarion for it. Also, even though the MP on the one hand says there shall be no doctrinal compromise, on the other hand its official statements about e.g. the Catholic church suggests they still consider them to be in some way part of the church. Ecumenists in any case don't consider rigidity over terminology to be incompatible with intercommunion, as seen for instance in the union between Alexandria and the Coptic church, or Antioch and the Syrian church. Neither the Copts nor the Syrians have accepted the Chalcedonian definition of Christ's two natures, and yet now they have communion openly with the 'Orthodox' patriarchates. What they did was argue that the definition was only a matter of terminology, not of doctrine as was formerly held, and now they claim to hold the same faith. The obvious objection is that if they share the same faith they should be able to accept the definition, but this objection is not answered. So it appears that as long as you can argue that any theological differences between the West and East is mere 'terminology', not substantive doctrine, you can proceed with arranging intercommunion: thus the current position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is that the Filioque clause in the Western creed is only a terminological difference and does not imply a different doctrine.

Secondly, the MP's statements against ecumenism are contradicted by its actions. The MP still participates in the WCC, even though it should have become clear to everybody after half a century of involvement that the WCC has not brought the heterodox over to Orthodoxy, but only contributes to doctrinal compromise and syncretism. The MP also maintains communion with much more openly ecumenist jurisdictions, like the EP, Antioch and Alexandria. They support the innovative new calendarist church over the traditional old calendarist church in Greece. The GOC holds to a basic line: membership of the WCC is ipso facto endorsement of ecumenism, entailing heretical beliefs about the 'lost unity' of the Church and the need to regain it by negotiation over doctrine. This is what the founding charter holds, and members automatically agree to these terms. So we want the MP to hold a more consistent anti-ecumenist position, which means leaving the WCC and severing communion with other churches that remain members. You might think this is a tall order and unlikely to happen any time soon. You would probably be right, so you shouldn't waste your time, but should join the GOC at once!
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #179 on: July 28, 2009, 06:30:27 PM »


Firstly, we don't take the MP's statements entirely seriously because they are contradicted by other statements of the MP. For instance, that WCC 2006 statement, which was openly syncretistic. The MP signed that through their representative Bp Hilarion of Vienna, and they have not rejected it or censured Bp Hilarion for it. Also, even though the MP on the one hand says there shall be no doctrinal compromise,




Jonathan, I am a little disappointed,  This less than honest line of argumentation ... presents a mixture of half-truth which leads to false conclusions designed to foster in the hearts of the timorous a fear that the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church of Christ.

Hear now the voice of Russia's doyen of ecumenism, Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk (was Vienna).

He is being interviewed about Russian participation in the 9th Assembly of the WCC in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 2006.


"In your opinion, what forms of ecumenism are acceptable, and which are
utterly unacceptable in church life? "

Bishop Hilarion:  "Intercommunion is unacceptable, the performance of
"ecumenical services" together with churches with which we do not have
Eucharistic communion is unacceptable, the "branch theory" is unacceptable,
unacceptable are any compromises in theological, ecclesiological or moral
matters. Unacceptable is theological syncretism, when the foundations of the
teaching of the Christian doctrine are diluted, when the fundamental
postulates of the Orthodox faith are questioned."


http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/en/documents/enart_interviewrocor.html



MODERATION:  Sweeping ad hominem insinuation that those in the Traditionalist Orthodox movements are liars removed from post.  Irish Hermit, you could have made your point very well without making such an insulting generalization.  -PtA
« Last Edit: July 28, 2009, 08:14:13 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Tags: ROCOR WCC ecumenism Old Calendarists Russian Orthodox 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.245 seconds with 72 queries.