OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Free-For-All => Religious Topics => Topic started by: Ben on August 04, 2004, 02:21:03 AM

Title: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Ben on August 04, 2004, 02:21:03 AM
I do not know if this has already been brought up, but in searching for more information on Saint Hermenegild, I ran accross the website for the "Synod of Milan" - http://www.odox.net/Synod.htm, which has an Icon and a little info on Saint Heremenegild.

Anyway, I was curious as to know if this was a valid Orthodox Church. I do not know if "valid" is the right word, but I suspect that the "Synod of Milan" is just a vagante group, but I could be wrong, so I thought I'd check.

Thanks!

p.s. If anyone has more info on Saint Hermenegild, please let me know, I recently learned of him, and I am very interested!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Thomas on August 04, 2004, 09:15:33 AM
The Synod of Milan is a Western Orthodox Church Synod and ia another one of the dubiously connected orthodox churches.  It would probably be considered to be a Vagante church however with no claim to the papal throne being made, it sees itself as an Orthodox Church. It  has a patriarch who is seated in Milan, Italy. It has a few parishes in the US, one being St Mary's in Austin Texas. One of their bishop's resides at St Hilarion's Monastery there.  As I understand it, the group in Texas was originally under the Old Catholics, became "orthodox" and then affiliated with the Milan Synod.

Their website, like many of these "orthodox" churches makes great effort to show apostolic succession but one will find the apostolic succession to be more a hodgepodge mixture of various old calendar jurisdictions, none of which will currently recognize themselves to be in communion with the synod.

The St Hilarion's website is  a wealth of  western orthodox material including excellent translations of early English Rites and Services. The American  branch of this jurisdiction uses the Sarum Rite. Their Calendar of Saints and icons of Western Orthodox Saints is impressive. The monastery consists of fewer than five monks and novices (the last time I checked it consisted of 3)But sadly they are of dubious orthodox origin and not in communion with other Orthodox churches, old calendar or new calendar. Greek and Antiochian Orthodox priests in Austin have attempted to bring them into the Orthodox Church but they have as of yet been unwilling to submit to the Church.

In Christ,
Thomas
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: The young fogey on August 04, 2004, 09:32:34 AM
Quote
Anyway, I was curious as to know if this was a valid Orthodox (http://home.att.net/~sergei592/East.html) Church.


It isn't.

Quote
I do not know if "valid" is the right word, but I suspect that the "Synod of Milan" is just a vagante group, but I could be wrong, so I thought I'd check.

Your suspicion is correct.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Michaelj on August 04, 2004, 10:58:58 AM
I used to be in contact (it is so often via the internet to lose correspondence with someone- unfortunately) with a Bishop of the Milan Synod who if I remember correctly was based in Austria or somewhere in Central Europe. He was quite fluent in Rumanian, Church Slavonic, German and English (french maybe?) as well as Latin I assume. Anyway His Emminence was very eager to 'align' his Church with other more 'mainstream' Orthodox Churches. This all occurred when I was living in Australia years ago. I know he was in correspondence with some Bishops there as well as in Canada and Rumania.

Once again my opinion would be rather than belittle the authenticity of other branches of Orthodoxy shouldn't we work towards the communion of them? And note, here I use the term communion in a non-ecclesiastical manner.

Regards,

Mike :)
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Isaac on August 10, 2004, 02:38:07 PM
Milan Synod.

Actually I think they have legitimate apostolic succession from the True Orthodox Church of Greece.  I could be wrong, but that was what I heard.

As for their Western Rite material, it is the best.  Their scholarship with regard to the translation of the Orthodox Latin liturgies, etc., is great and is approved for use in ROCOR WR parishes.

By the way, anyone who wants to know: the True Orthodox Churches of Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania were helped in their episcopal ordinations by the Russian Church Abroad.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Thomas on August 10, 2004, 03:01:26 PM
The problem ,as I understand it,  is that although the Milan Synod sees itself as Orthodox, it currently is not in communion with any other orthodox jurisdiction. I agree the scholarship done by the monastery in Austin is great and their Calendar of Western Rite Orthodox Saints is the most complete available anywhere-- but there is a caution----while they say they are Orthodox, they are not currently viewed as Orthodox by any of the jurisdictions that had a hand in their original apostolic ordinations. Are they Orthodox or not?

I don't think so.

In Christ,
Thomas
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: The young fogey on August 10, 2004, 03:20:06 PM
Quote
Actually I think they have legitimate apostolic succession from the True Orthodox Church of Greece.  I could be wrong, but that was what I heard.

Well, a word or three should be said here about 'lines of apostolic succession' and how Eastern Orthodox think of them.

What you say might be true - if (and this is a big if) the bishops doing the consecrating weren't deposed by their Orthodox church.

But even if it is, as Thomas said they're not recognized as a church by any Orthodox one so, given the holistic and ecclesiological approach the Orthodox take to holy orders ('if it's not in the church, including not anymore, it doesn't mean anything to us'), their claim to such 'lines' doesn't mean anything in the Orthodox world.

Unless perhaps they wanted to return to an Orthodox church. Then chances are their bishops would be accepted in their orders simply owing to their return, and their priests and deacons retroactively recognized.

Vagantes are obsessed with getting and claiming these 'lines of succession' and talk about them incessantly - something 'real' churches such as the Assyrian, Oriental, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran churches that claim this succession don't do.

Quote
By the way, anyone who wants to know: the True Orthodox Churches of Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania were helped in their episcopal ordinations by the Russian Church Abroad.


Which seems to be a case of internal schism among the Orthodox where both sides, even though they're against each other, are somehow in the Orthodox communion. A group set up altar against altar vs. the Orthodox Churches of those Balkan countries but - thanks to its ties to the Churches of Serbia and Jerusalem - is itself still in the Orthodox club.

The Milan group are straight-arrow as far as vagantes go - they keep the Byzantine Rite and Orthodox theology and even their Western Rite experiment looks respectable. But ecclesiologically they don't make any sense.

They may be nice guys and good scholars, but they're not Eastern Orthodox.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Νεκτάριος on August 10, 2004, 06:17:10 PM
Intersting....so Latins and Anglicans most definetely have orders that mean nothing to Orthodoxy....
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Elisha on August 10, 2004, 06:42:00 PM
Intersting....so Latins and Anglicans most definetely have orders that mean nothing to Orthodoxy....

Ummm...correct?  I don't get your point.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: The young fogey on August 10, 2004, 07:20:27 PM
I know +¥+¦+¦-ä+¼-ü+¦++-é is probably baiting but the answer is the Eastern Orthodox see clergy of the Milan Synod as being like RC and Anglican clergy: not Eastern Orthodox.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Elisha on August 10, 2004, 07:33:47 PM
I know +¥+¦+¦-ä+¼-ü+¦++-é is probably baiting but the answer is the Eastern Orthodox see clergy of the Milan Synod as being like RC and Anglican clergy: not Eastern Orthodox.

Pretty much what I thought.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: CuriousPaul on August 11, 2004, 12:06:01 AM
But even if it is, as Thomas said they're not recognized as a church by any Orthodox one so, given the holistic and ecclesiological approach the Orthodox take to holy orders ('if it's not in the church, including not anymore, it doesn't mean anything to us'), their claim to such 'lines' doesn't mean anything in the Orthodox world.

. . .

Which seems to be a case of internal schism among the Orthodox where both sides, even though they're against each other, are somehow in the Orthodox communion. A group set up altar against altar vs. the Orthodox Churches of those Balkan countries but - thanks to its ties to the Churches of Serbia and Jerusalem - is itself still in the Orthodox club.

Could you explain tho this confused RCer how ecclesial communion works in the Orthodox Church? If Church A breaks communion with Church B,  and Church B is in communion with all churches in communion with Church A, well, that pretty much makes sense.

However,  if Church A decided that all the other Orthodox jurisdictions had fallen into heresy, and excommunicated them all, would they be "outside the club," which is now comprised only of Church A?

Or to put it more directly, is it possible for the interested outsider to determine what is the legitimate jurisdictional locus (or loci) of Orthodoxy?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Asteriktos on August 11, 2004, 12:33:14 AM
Curious Paul

A Church's Orthodoxy is determined by one thing... it's orthodoxy! :) There are a few attributes/characteristics that someone who is orthodox/Orthodox will have though. They will have at least one bishop with a flock (though sometimes a group can be left bishopless, but if this is the case, they can only be considered fully and unquestionably Orthodox for a time, since the Church revolves around a bishop and his flock... the other possibility of an Orthodox group without bishops is if it is the final days and years in the end times and all the bishops have died, been martyred, etc.). Orthodox will preserve the faith as taught by word or epistle. This means 1) preserving more than just some artificially constructed set of essentials, and 2) avoiding sectarian divisions over small issues.  Obviously love is a key to being Orthodox. Apostolic succession is also important, though it is thought of as more than just a list of names in Orthodoxy. Those who are Orthodox follow the Scriptures and Tradition of the Church. Also, there are exceptions to this (e.g., Meletios of Antioch in the 4th century), but by-in-large the Orthodox also have legitimate canonical foundation/origin, and continue to follow the canons as best they can given their circumstances.

The Church is not built on a pentarcy, patriarchates, autocephalous churches, etc., athough many people will try to tell you that it is. These are only later administrative ideas that helped the Church organize better (we may appear chaotic, but we Orthodox aren't exactly unorganized religion).The Church, in a word, is an Orthodox bishop with an Orthodox flock living their Orthdodox life in Christ as they attempt to work out their salvation. One last thought, the biggest group is not always the right one. Many schisms happened in the 20th century, as just as in the 4th century, the largest groups were many times the most wrong.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: The young fogey on August 11, 2004, 07:26:35 AM
Quote
Could you explain tho this confused RCer how ecclesial communion works in the Orthodox Church? If Church A breaks communion with Church B,  and Church B is in communion with all churches in communion with Church A, well, that pretty much makes sense.

Something like that. Or Church A decides Church B isn't good enough to be in communion with, but Churches A and B are both in communion with Church C, which is in communion with all the other churches in the Orthodox club. Thus Church A is still in the club.

Quote
Or to put it more directly, is it possible for the interested outsider to determine what is the legitimate jurisdictional locus (or loci) of Orthodoxy?

Yes. Check out 'Portraits of the Patriarchs' here (http://home.att.net~sergei592/East.html#411). If it's not under one of these men, it's not in the club.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Asteriktos on August 11, 2004, 08:17:58 AM
Curious Paul,

Last night I edited my post so as not to say something against Serge, but since he again spoke the same error today, I think I had better come out with it. Serge is promoting something called neo-papal-patriarchalism. It is a grave ecclesiological error that is influenced by the need to have everything neat and orderly and in it's place, even at the expense of orthodoxy. You can find out about this error by searching Google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=neo-papal-patriarchalism) or other search engines. I don't really feel like debating the point as I think I'd just say uncharitable things I'd later regret, in my attempt to defend the truth. There is no truth without love, so I must keep my mouth shut henceforth on this subject. :)
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: The young fogey on August 11, 2004, 09:41:44 AM
I'm not 'promoting' anything, just describing the Eastern Orthodox as they themselves define who's in and who's out of their group.

Neo-papal-patriarchalism sounds more like cult in-language than anything I've read by actual Eastern Orthodox or anybody else.

I think the matter here is Justin has arrogated to himself the right to reject the commonly understood Orthodox communion (to which most of you belong or at least identify with), judging it as not orthodox, while either still claiming to be Eastern Orthodox himself or even that his favourite church or sect at the moment (he's changed his mind a few times in the past couple of years) is the only Orthodox church left on earth. Making the same historical mistake as the Russian Old Believers: those who won't learn from history, etc.

God as He shows Himself in His creation is logical and orderly.

There's nothing magic or dogmatic about the pentarchy but the church in general was organized into patriarchates (including, in the form in which it existed at the time, Roman primacy) around the same time the hypostatic union was defined and definitely by the time the use of images in church was defended and dogmatized.

You can say patriarchates are only of the bene esse of the church while episcopacy (http://home.att.net/~sergei592/Church.html#Bishop) is of the esse, but the Orthodox are sticklers for episcopacy functionally being only in the church, and they, the Orthodox, say groups like the Milan Synod, and the Greek Old Calendarists with whom Justin is infatuated right now, have stepped outside it.

I have no personal interest in Justin - I don't care for him online, have never met him and don't plan on meeting him. That said, underneath all his words the only person shepherding Justin is Justin - he doesn't listen to bishops, etc.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Twenty Nine on August 11, 2004, 10:53:13 AM
Quote
I think the matter here is Justin has arrogated to himself the right to reject the commonly understood Orthodox communion (to which most of you belong or at least identify with), judging it as not orthodox, while either still claiming to be Eastern Orthodox himself or even that his favourite church or sect at the moment (he's changed his mind a few times in the past couple of years) is the only Orthodox church left on earth. Making the same historical mistake as the Russian Old Believers: those who won't learn from history, etc.

On the other hand, Serge, the actual history of the Church has not been as logical and orderly as you seem to present it.

Quote
I have no personal interest in Justin - I don't care for him online, have never met him and don't plan on meeting him. That said, underneath all his words the only person shepherding Justin is Justin - he doesn't listen to bishops, etc.

Completely unnecessary.

Gregory
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: The young fogey on August 11, 2004, 11:05:02 AM
Quote
On the other hand, Serge, the actual history of the Church has not been as logical and orderly as you seem to present it.

Quite right - that criticism also applies to more than one person writing in print or online claiming to speak for the Orthodox.

Quote
Completely unnecessary.

Necessary to see 'where he's coming from' to understand his opposition to the commonly understood Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: 4Truth on August 11, 2004, 05:36:00 PM
The group in Austin (St. Hilarion's Monastery) was there when I lived in Austin during the 1970s-1980s.  They were started by former Episcopalians and former Catholics who simply "hung their shingle" labelled "Orthodox."  The term "Orthodox" may not be copyrighted, and anybody on the planet legally may advertise his or her organization as "Orthodox Christian."  (The priest mentioned below researched this question.)  

For a while, they had a large photograph of the Patriarach of Antioch hanging in their vestibule, with the prominent label, "Our Patriarch."  The Antiochian priest (of the parish I attended at the time) visited them in "plain clothes", and pleasantly invited them to open up about themselves.  When they started talking about their "sister parish, St. _____", and referring to the photograph of the Patriarch of Antioch, Fr. ___  dropped his cover.  He bluntly informed them that there was no "sister parish", and offered them a possible lawsuit unless they removed the labelled photograph.  (They swiftly complied, I believe.)  

The members of St. Hilarion Monastery waltzed through at least one Orthodox jurisdiction before landing in their present spot with the "Synod of Milan."  Perhaps I am just remembering their incarnation as "Old Catholics."    

The monastery in Blanco, Texas, also was started by "Orthodox wannabes."  Before they went under the (legitimate) oversight of the ROCOR, they launched the most ludicrous Barnum-and-Bailey promotion of their alleged weeping icon.  (I received some of their mailouts.)
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Fr. David on August 11, 2004, 05:46:17 PM
I, too, saw a pamphlet of the icon while in San Antonio.

Pretty weird stuff.  :badhairday:
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Anastasios on August 12, 2004, 06:23:12 AM
I don't have any time whatsoever to post anything sensible but I noticed this topic while I was briefly checking our site.

The Orthodox Church does not say that Greek Old Calendarists are not Orthodox and that they are outside the Church.  What is said is that they are in an irregular position akin to ROCOR.  A cursory reading of the sources from the State Church of Greece when the schism occurred and to this day will show that is how they view Old Calendarists.

While communion with the "established" Church is certainly a big clue as to one's normalcy, you can't use that as an absolute yardstick with which to measure every group that doesn't fit that measurement.

I would welcome further discussion but will not be able to respond until Aug 18 when I return from Slovakia.

anastasios
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Augustine on August 12, 2004, 11:53:58 AM
In simple terms, the status of a body as Orthodox, fundamentally boils down to whether or not they are in fact Orthodox.  That may sound odd, but it's amazing how neat, quasi-Papist ecclessiologies typically miss this fundamental point.  Besides Orthodoxy of faith, canonicity of foundation is almost as important (though not as, since even this in some measure can be qualified, as history demonstrates.)

In "good times" (which if you look at the record, doesn't really comprise much of the Church's history), perhaps pointing to the larger, more or less "monied" and secularly favoured institutions which identify themselves as "the Church" is a safe bet, and requires little if any further inquiry.

Unfortunately, such superficial estimations are not always indicative of reality.  Simply pointing to "communion with this or that Patriarch" in troubled times solves nothing, and as history would instruct us (since some here seem very big on learning the lessons of history) would often have put one in league with heresiarchs (bearing in mind that several occupents of the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople have been heretics, as was at least one Pope of Rome prior to the schism of 1054, etc.)  Such appeals to mere "officialdom" then, or even "majority rules" would have been futile - and obviously all of these blaspheming players, would have insisted they were the Church, and those who would have nothing to do with them were the ones in err, and would have kindly dubbed them as "schismatics" or "rogue clergy."

This is not to say that it cannot be that the "odd men out" are in fact simply rogue clergy, or schisms.  That does, and has certainly happened.  However, what I can say, is that unlike in Roman Catholicism (where being out of step with the Pope and those in his communion is a sentence in itself), Orthodoxy knows of no intrinsic power, in the act of being in communion with this or that diocese of Patriarchate, to render one "Orthodox."

Rdr. Serge,

Quote
Neo-papal-patriarchalism sounds more like cult in-language than anything I've read by actual Eastern Orthodox or anybody else.

Well, I've heard this phrase used by authors who I know are in communion with ROCOR and who are ROCOR clergy themselves - in fact, a birdy told me you yourself (strictly speaking) are a cleric in ROCOR (a Reader.)

Quote
think the matter here is Justin has arrogated to himself the right to reject the commonly understood Orthodox communion (to which most of you belong or at least identify with), judging it as not orthodox, while either still claiming to be Eastern Orthodox himself or even that his favourite church or sect at the moment (he's changed his mind a few times in the past couple of years) is the only Orthodox church left on earth. Making the same historical mistake as the Russian Old Believers: those who won't learn from history, etc.

...or he could be like lots of other confused Orthodox in troubled times, just trying to make his way with a clean conscience.  Yes, there have been "Old Believer" style situations a plenty; but then again, there were also "Arian/Semi-Arian" style situations as well.

While I'm not sure what final conclusions Paradosis has made (if he has), I do agree with him on one thing - there is a heretical ecumenism which is endemic in much of "Orthodox officialdom", and it goes unpunished; can we take that lack of punishment as an endorsement?  IT's hard not to, when the perpetraitors themselves bare Patriarchal title.

While you may not agree that such a heresy exists, obviously your Church (or so I was told) does - ROCOR anathematized it in 1983, and that Synodal anathema appears in the list ROCOR condemns every year on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, alongside Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, etc.

Quote
God as He shows Himself in His creation is logical and orderly.

Unfortunately, people are not - and discerning who is who, can be a difficult thing.  I do agree though, God eventually sorts it out with us (though rarely without us.)

Quote
Necessary to see 'where he's coming from' to understand his opposition to the commonly understood Orthodox Church.

Perhaps - so I imagine you will object in no wise to my indication of your ecclessiastical affiliations and clerical status, right?  Btw., I find it very odd that a clergyman would not identify himself as such when dealing with others, particularly Orthodox on an Orthodox forum.



Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: The young fogey on August 12, 2004, 11:58:01 AM
Quote
The Orthodox Church does not say that Greek Old Calendarists are not Orthodox and that they are outside the Church.  What is said is that they are in an irregular position akin to ROCOR.  A cursory reading of the sources from the State Church of Greece when the schism occurred and to this day will show that is how they view Old Calendarists.

While communion with the "established" Church is certainly a big clue as to one's normalcy, you can't use that as an absolute yardstick with which to measure every group that doesn't fit that measurement.

That doesn't make any sense unless one accepts the Western theology of 'validity' outside the bounds of one's church, which many Orthodox don't.

Or if the group in question is still somehow in communion with the Orthodox via ROCOR, which makes them schismatic vis-+á-vis the Church of Greece but still Orthodox.

Or if one sees them the way the Old Believers historically see themselves, as all that's left of the church on earth. (I understand these Greek Old Calendarist sects have schismed among themselves over recognizing grace in the actual Orthodox churches.)

Augustine, what I wrote to and re: Justin I think applies about as well to you. Seems like you've already prepared an argument to leave ROCOR and the Orthodox communion when your church unites with the Church of Russia, which I think is a matter of when, not if.

It's true that communion with any one diocese or patriarch doesn't define membership in the fellowship of the church for the Orthodox (unlike the way communion with Rome defines full churchness for RCs) - but membership in the whole Orthodox communion does.

Lots of 'birdies' online, particularly in the Orthodox and pseudo-Orthodox online scene, practise crap netiquette. (It's almost always converts - rarely ethnics.)

I don't represent myself online as a reader.

I don't represent ROCOR.

I don't represent the Orthodox communion - I simply describe it when appropriate as accurately as possible, as with anything else I write.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Augustine on August 12, 2004, 12:24:43 PM
Rdr. (?) Serge,

Quote
That doesn't make any sense unless one accepts the Western theology of 'validity' outside the bounds of one's church, which many Orthodox don't.

...unless one accepts as possible the temporary reality of groups that are genuinely Orthodox not being in communion with one another, due to the chaos and confusion created by heresies.  That certainly has happened, even between great Saint-Confessors.  The situation of St.Cyril of Jerusalem comes to mind (some confessors accepted him as a confessor and genuine Bishop; some did not.)

Quote
Or if the group in question is still somehow in communion with the Orthodox via ROCOR, which makes them schismatic vis-+á-vis the Church of Greece but still Orthodox.

And ROCOR is only "Orthodox", because it's in communion with the JP and the Serbs (though the latter is somewhat tenuous, even in recent years; but generally it is the case, despite unfortunate statements made by Patriarch Pavle after being bullied by Alexis II of Moscow)?

Quote
Or if one sees them the way the Old Believers historically see themselves, as all that's left of the church on earth. (I understand these Greek Old Calendarist sects have schismed among themselves over recognizing grace in the actual Orthodox churches.)

While the comparison with Old Believers is sufficiently inflamatory, if one actually thinks about the substance of the comparison it is apparent that it's a useless one; by definition any genuine Orthodox body (even as you define this) are the "last Orthodox on earth."

You are correct though, there have been unfortunate schisms amongst the Old Calendarists.  Some of this I attribute to sin, though I think a good measure of it is due to the confusing circumstances of the present situation and the different appraisals that can flow from it; in short, just how far gone are those Churches involved in ecumenism?  While I think the more extreme Old Calendarists err in their zeal, I think both history and God are going to judge them better than the ecumenists, who I am confident will be synodally condemned in the future (since it's quite manifest their activities do not simply violate the letter of the canons, but their very spirit; they are not practicing love toward our heterodox friends, but a syncretism which only confirms them in falsehood.)

Quote
Lots of 'birdies' online, particularly in the Orthodox and pseudo-Orthodox online scene, practise crap netiquette. (It's almost always converts - rarely ethnics.)

Converts like you, who bring up people's background so as to slight them, and put them in a bad light (I admit, often a far easier tactic than reasoning)?

Quote
I don't represent myself online as a reader.

You're talking about it like it's a big bad secret, akin to the revelation that your grandparents were first cousins or you'd been in rehab or something like this.  Unless you're trying to tell me what I was told in passing is completly incorrect, and you in fact are not a clergyman.

Quote
I don't represent ROCOR.

Because you are not a member of ROCOR, right?  Otherwise, I find some of the things you write utterly incomprehensible.

Quote
I don't represent the Orthodox communion - I simply describe it when appropriate as accurately as possible, as with anything else I write.

In other words, we should regard what you write the same way we might regard something written by an Anglican or a Roman Catholic on the Orthodox Church - a detached appraisal, all the while not having tasted of Her essence or lived in Her embrace?

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: The young fogey on August 12, 2004, 12:35:12 PM
Quote
...unless one accepts as possible the temporary reality of groups that are genuinely Orthodox not being in communion with one another, due to the chaos and confusion created by heresies.

That's rich. 'Our theology doesn't accept "validity" outside the church but our schisms and pissing contests aren't our fault - it's those evil heretics!'

Quote
And ROCOR is only "Orthodox", because it's in communion with the JP and the Serbs (though the latter is somewhat tenuous, even in recent years; but generally it is the case, despite unfortunate statements made by Patriarch Pavle after being bullied by Alexis II of Moscow)?

Affirmative.

Quote
While the comparison with Old Believers is sufficiently inflam[m]atory

Homer J. Simpson: 'It's so funny because it's true.'

Quote
Converts like you, who bring up people's background so as to slight them, and put them in a bad light (I admit, often a far easier tactic than reasoning)?

Like I said, I don't claim to speak for the Orthodox so the 'convert' thing is irrelevant. Reasoning shows that Justin's position doesn't make any sense. I only brought up converts because ISTM you're another example of a convert who's rude. (If I knew this forum would end up being 'Indiana List Mk II' I never would have signed on.)

Quote
Otherwise, I find some of the things you write utterly incomprehensible.

Fine with me.

Quote
In other words, we should regard what you write the same way we might regard something written by an Anglican or a Roman Catholic on the Orthodox Church

If you like.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Augustine on August 12, 2004, 02:56:44 PM
Dear Rdr.(?) Serge,

Obviously, we're just going to have to disagree.  Unless something changes, I think all that needs to be said in this exchange (between you and I) has been said.  With that, I'd be honoured if you'd have the last word.

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Keble on August 13, 2004, 12:04:11 AM
The Church, in a word, is an Orthodox bishop with an Orthodox flock living their Orthdodox life in Christ as they attempt to work out their salvation.

But, um, while it may be possible for a bishop to separate himself from a church which has (in his view) become heretical, the canonical requirements for consecration mean that bishops, to be bishops, cannot arise out of nowhere. That's the sign of the problem with "continuing" Anglicans: they cannot summon up the requisite three, so the consecrations remain suspicious.

Likewise, in practice one would have to question whether a bishop who insisted on separation from the main thread of Orthodoxy could really avoid heresy. One would have to suspect that the principle behind the separation would be, most likely, an error.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Isaac on August 13, 2004, 04:13:41 PM
Paradosis,

I couldn't agree more.  Canonicity is not determined by whom you are in communion with.  I think the Church proved that about 1000 years ago ;^).  Canonicity is obedience to the canons.  The Charism of the Episcopate is necessary, in that the Bishop, occupying the place of Peter (according to St. Cyprian) is the fountainhead of the Mysteries.  

I will defend the Synod of Milan as Orthodox for the following reasons:
1)Legitimate Apostolic succession of its Bishops
2)It has not been anathematized by any Orthodox Churches
3)It is Orthodox in its faith and practice

This neo-papal-patriarchalism ignores Church history!  Large segments of the Church were out of communion with each other for long periods of time.  This is the Body's way of defending itself against heresy... like an immuno-reaction or something.  

Communion with Christ and His Saints is the most essential thing.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Keble on August 14, 2004, 02:34:24 AM
I will defend the Synod of Milan as Orthodox for the following reasons:

1)Legitimate Apostolic succession of its Bishops

Well, it's plain that this point is disputed. I can't find the place where this is documented on-line, but from what Serge says, this claim is about as plausible is that of any random continuing Anglican church, none of which can be traced to sitting bishops in Anglican churches.

Quote
2)It has not been anathematized by any Orthodox Churches

don't know about that.

Quote
3)It is Orthodox in its faith and practice

Well, maybe, if you leave out sacramental ecclesiology (point 1 above).

Quote
This neo-papal-patriarchalism ignores Church history!  Large segments of the Church were out of communion with each other for long periods of time.

Ah, but that's a different situation. It's one thing for ROCOR to be not in communion with, say, the MP. It's another thing to try and create a new church out of questionable bishops, and that's what you are trying to defend. This gets rather Methodist, or maybe Lutheran, but it's definitely fringy episcopal polity.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Isaac on August 16, 2004, 12:30:56 AM
Well I'm laboring under the assumption that ROCA's Bishops did in fact ordain the SoM's Bishops.  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

But that's also a good question... under what conditions does the grace of the Episcopacy depart?  Does it take a Church-wide anathema?  A simple deposition by the Synod?  This is a good question, because there were times in Church History when Bishops were uncanonically deposed, like during the Robber Council of Ephesus.

I'm certain that the Church has answered these questions, and I suppose I'll have to ask my spiritual father.

Do any of the Orthodox on the board know the answer?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: The young fogey on August 16, 2004, 08:06:05 AM
Quote
Well I'm laboring under the assumption that ROCA's Bishops did in fact ordain the SoM's Bishops.  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

I'm not speaking for any of the churches in question but if I recall rightly that's correct, but it doesn't matter, because although the SoM were in the Orthodox communion when ROCA did that, they are outside the Orthodox communion now.

Quote
But that's also a good question... under what conditions does the grace of the Episcopacy depart?  Does it take a Church-wide anathema?  A simple deposition by the Synod?  This is a good question, because there were times in Church History when Bishops were uncanonically deposed, like during the Robber Council of Ephesus.

I think the answer in this context (Eastern Orthodoxy, which has the power of the keys, regarding the sacraments and the grace in them, over its own people) is the last - simple deposition by a synod. In this case, breaking communion with ROCA whilst not being in communion with any other Orthodox church means not being Orthodox anymore.

Of course the classic Orthodox answer regarding non-Orthodox including these former Orthodox is 'only God knows if these bishops still have grace'. But functionally the Orthodox treat them like they don't - unless they go back to the Orthodox communion.

Again, membership doesn't hang on intercommunion only with Constantinople or any other particular Orthodox see but rather on intercommunion somehow with the communion as the communion (which happens to include Constantinople but doesn't have to).
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Keble on August 17, 2004, 12:43:53 PM
OK, now I'm confused. Can someone explain exactly how this synod got started?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on August 22, 2008, 01:05:38 AM
I refer you to my response elsewhere on OC.net.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,16324.msg247408.html#msg247408 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,16324.msg247408.html#msg247408)

I am willing to make any clarification if you care to write to me at stjohn@kellion.org

yours in Christ,
Stavrophoremonk Symeon
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Pravoslavbob on August 22, 2008, 09:21:08 PM
You are responding to this request 4 YEARS LATER??????? This thread is locked.
Title: Milan Synod - Primate's Encyclical
Post by: Irish Hermit on October 14, 2010, 07:28:49 AM
Statement of Archbishop John [LoBue] concerning 2005 letter spreading throughout the Internet  

"Recently there has been a letter purporting to come from the Milan Synod in 2005, concerning questions about ecumenism.

"The letter in question was originally written by one bishop of the Milan Synod who is no longer with the Synod, it has never been presented for a vote by the Bishops of the Milan Synod and therefore has never been adopted as a policy of the Milan Synod. The Synod remains committed to its stance against ecumenism, and a new statement regarding the continuance of that policy is being prepared and will be presented shortly.  -- Archbishop John"

http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2010/10/statement-of-archbishop-john-concerning.html

The Encyclical (see attachment) appears to teach the Branch Theory of the Church and was issued and signed by Metropolitan Evloghios, Primate of the Milan Synod and has his seal affixed.  It has been described last week as heretical by two Milan clergyman and one (the deacon of Archbishop John (LoBue, of New York) has announced he will not attend services where the Metropolitan is commemorated until the matter is investigated.
Title: Re: Milan Synod - Primate's Encyclical 2010
Post by: Suaiden on January 23, 2011, 11:03:34 PM
Here is the statement from Milan to which Archbishop John refers:

A Reassertion of the Stand Against Ecumenism in the Modern Era

While much scholarship and research into history has been done in the last century, it has become all too easy to assert new ideas that are not a part of the theological beliefs of the Holy Orthodox Church as in fact representative' of earlier Orthodox understandings of belief. These new erroneous interpretations of theology have been spread by many sources coming from outside the Orthodox Church, including the forces of certain German Protestant theologians as well as the false scholarship of the Jesuit schools that are committed to reconciling the Orthodox Churches with the - political assertions and agendas of the Papal hierarchy. Thus today we must go beyond the standard conciliar statements condemning Arianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysiticism to include even the veiled hidden assertions of Adoptionism and Monothelitism that still remain popularly held by many today even though they were fully denounced at the Ecumenical Councils.

For this reason, it has become all the more urgent to assert that the theological position of the Orthodox Patriarchates, including the Patriarchate of Constantinople, as it was kept preserved• up to and including the first two decades of the Twentieth Century must be reaffirmed as the standard of the under-standing of Orthodoxy even up to the present time. Anything that has been developed as additional theories or understandings since that time, that in any way run counter to this, must be considered initially as suspect, and can only be properly evaluated by a preponderance of evidence derived from all sources of Orthodox theological discussion and thereupon blessed by the universal conscience of the Orthodox hierarchy.

Thus when we identify ourselves as Traditional Orthodox it is with such a definition in mind, and where other forms of theological speculation have influenced any of us in the past few decades, it has become essential for us now to distance ourselves from such theological speculation.

Having said this, there is at no time a legitimate reason for us to disassociate ourselves from the very principles of Christian charity that are at the very root of the Gospel of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and that have been the underlying principles of Christian reconciliation all through the eras of the recognized Seven Ecumenical Councils that in their decrees and canons remain for us the source of the specific statements of our Orthodox belief and praxis. Therefore, let us always treat with charity and the utmost courtesy even those that we disagree with, whether they be Orthodox Christians or not, even as we explain in detail our reasons for separating ourselves from their theological positions. For only for this reason can we truly manifest a love for their souls, and thus plead with our Divine Lord and Saviour to help us to bring about their eternal salvation together with that of our own and that of the souls of the Orthodox that God has placed under our guidance.

In Aquileia, See of Saint Cromatios and Saint Paulinus, Patriarch
--Milan, See of Saint Ambrosius in the month of October, 2010,

[ signed ]
+Evloghios
Archbishop of Milan
Metropolitan of Aquilia
Primate

Source: http://www.milansynodusa.org/2011/01/statement-of-correction-by-metropolitan.html
Title: Re: Milan Synod - Primate's Encyclical 2010
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 23, 2011, 11:09:13 PM
Here is the statement from Milan to which Archbishop John refers:

A Reassertion of the Stand Against Ecumenism in the Modern Era

While much scholarship and research into history has been done in the last century, it has become all too easy to assert new ideas that are not a part of the theological beliefs of the Holy Orthodox Church as in fact representative' of earlier Orthodox understandings of belief. These new erroneous interpretations of theology have been spread by many sources coming from outside the Orthodox Church, including the forces of certain German Protestant theologians as well as the false scholarship of the Jesuit schools that are committed to reconciling the Orthodox Churches with the - political assertions and agendas of the Papal hierarchy. Thus today we must go beyond the standard conciliar statements condemning Arianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysiticism to include even the veiled hidden assertions of Adoptionism and Monothelitism that still remain popularly held by many today even though they were fully denounced at the Ecumenical Councils.

For this reason, it has become all the more urgent to assert that the theological position of the Orthodox Patriarchates, including the Patriarchate of Constantinople, as it was kept preserved• up to and including the first two decades of the Twentieth Century must be reaffirmed as the standard of the under-standing of Orthodoxy even up to the present time. Anything that has been developed as additional theories or understandings since that time, that in any way run counter to this, must be considered initially as suspect, and can only be properly evaluated by a preponderance of evidence derived from all sources of Orthodox theological discussion and thereupon blessed by the universal conscience of the Orthodox hierarchy.

Thus when we identify ourselves as Traditional Orthodox it is with such a definition in mind, and where other forms. of theological speculation have influenced any of us in the past few decades, it has become essential for us now to distance ourselves from such theological speculation.

Having said this, there is at no time a legitimate reason for us to disassociate ourselves from the very principles of Christian charity that are at the very root of the Gospel of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and that have been the underlying principles of Christian reconciliation all through the eras of the recognized Seven Ecumenical Councils that in their decrees and canons remain for us the source of the specific statements of our Orthodox belief and praxis. Therefore, let us always treat with charity and the utmost courtesy even those that we disagree with, whether they be Orthodox Christians or not, even as we explain in detail our reasons for separating ourselves from their theological positions. For only for this reason can we truly manifest a love for their souls, and thus plead with our Divine Lord and Saviour to help us to bring about their eternal salvation together with that of our own and that of the souls of the Orthodox that God has placed under our guidance.

In Aquileia, See of Saint Cromatios and Saint Paulinus, Patriarch
--Milan, See of Saint Ambrosius in the month of October, 2010,

[ signed ]
+Evloghios
Archbishop of Milan
Metropolitan of Aquilia
Primate
Did you copy this from another Web site? If so, we need you to give us a link to this site. Thank you.

- PeterTheAleut
Moderator
Title: Re: Milan Synod - Primate's Encyclical 2010
Post by: Suaiden on January 23, 2011, 11:21:34 PM
Did you copy this from another Web site? If so, we need you to give us a link to this site. Thank you.
- PeterTheAleut
Moderator
The .pdf is too large to upload. I have included a link to it.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on March 04, 2011, 03:47:00 AM
TOC Metropolia of the Americas & British Isles

In Milan, Italy on February 14/27, Archbishop John (LoBue) of New York, who
has been leading the American Church of the so-called Milan Synod alone for
sometime now, had been elevated to the rank of Metropolitan of North and
South America. His elevation likewise accompanies the independence of the
Anglo-American Dioceses from the Milan Synod as The Autonomous Orthodox
Metropolia of North and South America and the British Isles. The
Anglo-American Church returns to its original independence. Prior to their
merger in the Milan Synod in 1997 this same local Church was a Western Rite
jurisdiction with an autocephaly given by the EP in the early 1970s as
facilitated by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Exile. This new Metropolia
has been a leader in traditional form of the Western Rite with a fair number
of Eastern Rite missions and kellions. Two monastic priests were elected as
vicar-Bishops to assist Metropolitan John. Vicar Bishop Fanourios (Michael)
of Lincoln was consecrated during the week in Milan. Archimandrite Michael
(Acosta) of Kissismmee Skete of the Holy Royal Martyrs will be consecrated
at a later date.

http://hermitage-journal.blogspot.com/2011/03/toc-metropolia-of-americas-british.html

_
Title: Milan says Goodbye to its American sector
Post by: kijabeboy03 on March 04, 2011, 04:13:11 PM
So the 31 parishes, missions, and monastic communities together with their three hierarchs will be a sister church to the Milan Synod in Western Europe and the synod it's in communion with in Greece?
Title: Re: Milan says Goodbye to its American sector
Post by: Irish Hermit on March 04, 2011, 04:24:03 PM
So the 31 parishes, missions, and monastic communities together with their three hierarchs will be a sister church to the Milan Synod in Western Europe and the synod it's in communion with in Greece?

The website lists these 2 Churches and a solitary bishop in Bukovina

Bulgarian Old Calendar Orthodox Church
Metropolitan Chrysostomos (Celi-Alemeida) of Ecuador and all-Latin America has joined the GOC's Church of Hellas
Barsanuphius (Sopolov) Archbishop of Chernovtsy, Herta, and Northern Bukovina.
GOC's Church of Hellas

http://hermitage-journal.blogspot.com/2011/03/toc-metropolia-of-americas-british.html
Title: Re: Milan says Goodbye to its American sector
Post by: kijabeboy03 on March 04, 2011, 04:26:17 PM
That interested me as well on this particular website! I've followed the Milan Synod from afar for quite some time now, but had never seen references to either the Bukovinans or the Bulgarians - I was under the impression that virtually all the Old Calendrists in Bulgaria were with the Cyprianites (as in Romania).
Title: Re: Milan says Goodbye to its American sector
Post by: Suaiden on March 05, 2011, 01:18:56 PM
So the 31 parishes, missions, and monastic communities together with their three hierarchs will be a sister church to the Milan Synod in Western Europe and the synod it's in communion with in Greece?

According to my understanding, every official declaration of communion with be worked out individually this week, but the basic answer is yes.
Title: Re: Milan says Goodbye to its American sector
Post by: Suaiden on March 05, 2011, 01:20:47 PM
That interested me as well on this particular website! I've followed the Milan Synod from afar for quite some time now, but had never seen references to either the Bukovinans or the Bulgarians - I was under the impression that virtually all the Old Calendrists in Bulgaria were with the Cyprianites (as in Romania).

You can get more complete information about all the jurisdictions here.
http://metropolsynodgoc.blogspot.com/p/ecclcommunion.html
Title: Re: Milan says Goodbye to its American sector
Post by: ag_vn on March 05, 2011, 06:04:20 PM
I was under the impression that virtually all the Old Calendrists in Bulgaria were with the Cyprianites (as in Romania).

Not all, but most Old Calendar Bulgarians are part of the Bulgarian Old Calendar Orthodox Church headed by Bishop Photios, they are in communion with the Cyprianites (and once used to be in communion with the ROCOR).

In addition there are a few Old Calendar parishes in Bulgaria which are part of the canonical Bulgarian Orthodox Church - the Bulgarian Patriarchate. (I think most Old calendar parishes in the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Patriarchate are in the USA and are convert parishes).

There are 2 or 3 parishes under Archbishop Gregory of Denver.

There is the group of Metropolitan Gervasios who is part of this - http://metropolsynodgoc.blogspot.com/p/ecclcommunion.html (http://metropolsynodgoc.blogspot.com/p/ecclcommunion.html). I don't know how many they are.

I think there is another Greek Old Calendar jurisdiction represented by at least one parish, but I can't remember which one right now.
Title: Re: Milan says Goodbye to its American sector
Post by: Irish Hermit on March 06, 2011, 12:42:01 AM
Milan and its new daughter Church in the States (MAB) already in schism

http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2011/03/european-and-american-metropolias.html#more

The official web site of the Holy Synod of Milan (
http://ihtis.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/statement/ ) formally claims, through
its office of External Relations, that it has entered into fraternal
relations with the Moscow Patriarchate and that it rejects communion with
any body referred to as "the Catacomb Church".

This claim was made approximately a week after the elevation of the American
Archdioceses to the status of an Autonomous Metropolia and annexing the
territory of Latin America and the British Isles to same.

In response, a clergy confession approved by Metropolitan John for clergy
entrants into the Metropolia has now surfaced on at least one website  (
http://milanfansite.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-clergy-confession-approved.html
 ), appearing to be a modified version of the clergy confession used by
American parishes directly under Archbishop Auxentios in the 1990's (now
HOCNA) with further clarifications on Sergianism and the agnostic position
of the Metropolis on grace in official Orthodoxy-- as well as a note from
the author that the Metropolia will not enter into communion with the Moscow
Patriarchate.


Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on March 06, 2011, 02:23:57 AM
The Clergy Confession, blessed by HB Metropolitan JOHN is now on the website of
the Metropolia.

http://www.milansynodusa.org/2011/03/text-of-confession-of-faith-to-be.html#more
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on March 06, 2011, 03:59:42 AM
The Clergy Confession, blessed by HB Metropolitan JOHN is now on the website of
the Metropolia.

http://www.milansynodusa.org/2011/03/text-of-confession-of-faith-to-be.html#more

Will non-juring priests whose conscience cannot accept provisions in the Clergy Confession be expelled from MAB (Metropolia of America and Britain)?
Title: Re: Milan says Goodbye to its American sector
Post by: Suaiden on March 06, 2011, 04:09:06 AM
I have been requested to not respond to Fr Ambrose, who consistently acts against the interests of the Church.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on March 06, 2011, 04:12:42 AM
I can find no notification on any Milan site that the Synod of Milan has erected an Autonomous Metropolia of America and Britain.

Is this a schismatic move by Archbp John LoBue of New York?
Title: Re: Milan says Goodbye to its American sector
Post by: Suaiden on March 06, 2011, 04:16:32 AM
For all those wondering,

The Tomos of Autonomy of the Milan Synod, which has been granted to a number of clergy of our Synod, will be made available shortly. It has been approved by the overwhelming majority of the Bishops of the Synod.

The full text of the Tomos will be available in the third edition of Lux Veritatis as well.

For my part, I hope all these Moscow negotiations are just a misstatement.
Title: Re: Milan says Goodbye to its American sector
Post by: SolEX01 on March 06, 2011, 04:20:18 AM
Is this a tactful way of referring to former Milan Synod Churches in USA as schismatics, by referring to them as autonomous and maintaining "Communion" with them?   ???
Title: Re: Milan says Goodbye to its American sector
Post by: Irish Hermit on March 06, 2011, 04:31:22 AM
One thing which we are not hearing are reasons why a Church was broken in two.

Title: Re: Milan says Goodbye to its American sector
Post by: Suaiden on March 06, 2011, 04:32:39 AM
Is this a tactful way of referring to former Milan Synod Churches in USA as schismatics, by referring to them as autonomous and maintaining "Communion" with them?   ???

Not at all. We were granted autonomy a week before these discussions with Moscow came to light. We have, as an autonomous Metropolia, every right to disagree with these discussions and assume, as previous discussions, that they will simply fail. As well as publicly do so.
Title: Re: Milan says Goodbye to its American sector
Post by: SolEX01 on March 06, 2011, 04:58:50 AM
Is this a tactful way of referring to former Milan Synod Churches in USA as schismatics, by referring to them as autonomous and maintaining "Communion" with them?   ???

Not at all. We were granted autonomy a week before these discussions with Moscow came to light. We have, as an autonomous Metropolia, every right to disagree with these discussions and assume, as previous discussions, that they will simply fail. As well as publicly do so.

The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America is supposedly autonomous and rarely, if ever, disagrees with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  Your definition of autonomous must be different from mine.
Title: Re: Milan says Goodbye to its American sector
Post by: Suaiden on March 06, 2011, 05:03:46 AM
The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America is supposedly autonomous and rarely, if ever, disagrees with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  Your definition of autonomous must be different from mine.

Yes, it is.
Title: Re: Milan says Goodbye to its American sector
Post by: Alpo on March 06, 2011, 06:03:30 AM
One thing which we are not hearing are reasons why a Church was broken in two.

Perpaps they're just trying to create new local churches? I've understood that besides being an Old Calendarist church Milan Synod's another point is to be Western local churh for the westerners.
Title: Re: Milan says Goodbye to its American sector
Post by: tuesdayschild on March 06, 2011, 06:29:24 AM
I have been requested to not respond to Fr Ambrose...

By whom?
Title: Re: Milan says Goodbye to its American sector
Post by: Irish Hermit on March 06, 2011, 07:47:34 AM

I have been requested to not respond to Fr Ambrose, who consistently acts against the interests of the Church.


What  is the Church?  

On your Blog NFTU you list these Churches as the true Orthodox Church.

This is a uniquely modern expression of the Church where none of its branches are in communion with the other branches.  It's heretical ecumenism and the Branch Theory carried to an extreme.

How can these Churches comprise the Church when your own Church refuses to be in communion with any of them, except for one (the small group of Met Angehelos of Avlonos created about 2 years ago.)

Autonomous True Orthodox Metropolia of Western Europe and America
Holy Orthodox Church in North America
ROCiE Metropolitanate of Moscow under Metropolitan Damascene of Moscow
Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church under Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia under Archbishop Anthony of San Fransisco
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia under Archbishop Vladimir of San Fransisco
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia- under Metropolitan Agafangel of Odessa
Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece under Abp Kallinikos of Athens
Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece under Archbishop Makarios of Athens
Genuine Orthodox Church Of Greece under Archbishop Nicholas of Athens
Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece under Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Thebes
Genuine Orthodox Church of the Patristic Calendar of Metropolitan Anghelos of Avlonos
Genuine Orthodox Synod under Metropolitan Kirykos of Mesogaia
Russian True Orthodox Church under Archbishop Tikhon of Omsk
Synod in Resistance under Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on March 06, 2011, 10:21:36 AM
The Clergy Confession, blessed by HB Metropolitan JOHN is now on the website of
the Metropolia.

http://www.milansynodusa.org/2011/03/text-of-confession-of-faith-to-be.html#more


Is this Clergy Confession part of the reason that the Milan Synod has cut
its American segment loose?  It contains exaggerations and extremist
positions which would not sit well with Milan and its more moderate and
irenic approach to the ancient Patriarchates and Churches.

How many of the new Metropolia of America & Britain clergy have signed it?
How many have refused?

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on March 06, 2011, 07:04:00 PM
The Clergy Confession, blessed by HB Metropolitan JOHN is now on the website of
the Metropolia.

http://www.milansynodusa.org/2011/03/text-of-confession-of-faith-to-be.html#more


Father Simon-Salos, the senior monastic of Milan-America, calls into
question the assertions made by the deacon of Saint Eulalia Joseph Suaiden
about the  so-called "Clergy Confession."

He also reveals that some priests have said they will not sign it.

_____________________________________________

http://hermitage-journal.blogspot.com/

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 03, 2011, 11:37:17 PM
Synod of Milan Wishes to come into Union with Moscow

http://ihtis.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/informazioni-riguardando-notizzie-della-nostra-metropolia/

The brief English-language summary on the website fails to include the most
interesting part of the Italian original: "...in dialogo fraterno col
Patriarcato di Mosca, per una futura unità con la Chiesa madre russa sottò
l'Omoforion di Sua Santità Patriarca Kirill."

"...in fraternal dialogue with the Patriarchate of Moscow, for a future
unity with the Mother Church of Russia under the omophorion of His Holiness
Patriarch Kirill."

Title: Milan Synod Removes American Links From Official Sites
Post by: Suaiden on April 04, 2011, 01:49:49 AM
It appears both http://ihtis.wordpress.com (http://ihtis.wordpress.com) and http://www.metropoliadimilano.it (http://www.metropoliadimilano.it) have removed their links to the American Metropolia's websites, presumably due to their opposition to concelebration and in anticipation of potential union with Moscow. This may have been done at the order of those who have recently and publicly expressed strong support for such a position.

The official American website (http://www.milansynodusa.org (http://www.milansynodusa.org)) contains a recent post refusing to accept concelebration with World Orthodoxy, as well as noting an investigation into recent claims on the Milan websites.

The Milan Synod granted the American Archdioceses autonomy and Metropolitan status in February.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Alpo on April 04, 2011, 06:44:11 AM
Why Moscow? I though that Milan Synod was born of the Greek Church so Constantinople or Athens would feel more natural choice.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 04, 2011, 06:49:08 AM
Are there Milan clergy in the newly formed Metropolia of America and Britain
who would prefer to remain under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Evloghios
and make the transition into the Russian Orthodox Church when the union
shall take place in the future?  It makes a lot of sense.

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 04, 2011, 07:01:06 AM
Why Moscow? I though that Milan Synod was born of the Greek Church so Constantinople or Athens would feel more natural choice.

One of the retired pages from the official website of the Synod of Milan

"The Autonomous Metropolia of Milan – Synod of Milan – of Russian Origin"   

http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20040521014750/http://utenti.lycos.it/Santo_Ambrogio/id18.htm
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Michał on April 04, 2011, 07:46:08 AM
Synod of Milan Wishes to come into Union with Moscow

Does it apply to all of the Synod of Milan, including their WR parishes?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Alpo on April 04, 2011, 09:21:16 AM
Synod of Milan Wishes to come into Union with Moscow

Does it apply to all of the Synod of Milan, including their WR parishes?

Are there any Milan's WR parishes in Europe?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: J Michael on April 04, 2011, 12:22:59 PM
Let me try to understand this.  The Milan Synod in Europe wants concelebration with Moscow, ostensibly meaning that they would then be in communion with not only Moscow, but the rest of "World Orthodoxy".  Have I got that right?

But the Milan Synod in Europe has granted autonomy to the Milan Synod in the U.S., thereby creating of them a so-called "metropolia".  And this new "metropolia" opposes concelebration with World Orthodoxy, if I understand correctly.  So, 1/2 of the schismatics want to rejoin the fold, but they spawned a new schism which wants to remain in communion with....themselves. 

Just a hypothetical question, which I hope, will remain just that:  If the new "metropolia" of the Milan Synod were to desire and then come into communion with "World Orthodoxy", what then would be the status of someone like Mr. Yelovich?  He was previously discussed on this website and has been laicized and ex-communicated by the Antiochian Archdiocese of America, having basically ex-communicated himself previously.  He has also been "re-ordained" by Archbishop John of the new "metropolia".

(I'd be happy to move this into a new thread if the mods think it appropriate.  I don't mean to derail this thread.)
Title: Re: Milan Synod Removes American Links From Official Sites
Post by: BoredMeeting on April 04, 2011, 01:42:25 PM
The Milan Synod granted the American Archdioceses autonomy and Metropolitan status in February.
All things considered, the timing of that seems to be most fortuitous.
Title: Re: Milan Synod Removes American Links From Official Sites
Post by: mike on April 04, 2011, 01:44:05 PM
The MP should teach the Milan Synod what 'autonomous' mean before accepting them.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: kijabeboy03 on April 04, 2011, 02:37:50 PM
The Milan Synod's sister church in North America has broken communion with it (http://www.milansynodusa.org/2011/04/status-of-current-churches-in-communion.html), so unless there's an underground movement in individual communities in North America for union with world Orthodoxy I doubt much will change in their status.

The Milan Synod in Europe is mostly Byzantine Rite if I'm not mistaken, with a mix of Russian and Romanian heritage communities (and converts as well?).
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Alpo on April 04, 2011, 03:13:12 PM
This is getting extremely weird. So this American Synod got autonomy from Milan Synod in February and now the American Synod breaks communion with Milan Synod due to Ecumenism. Since it's rather doubtful that the Milan Synod has changed since February doesn't this mean that American Synod got autonomy from Ecumenists?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: J Michael on April 04, 2011, 03:29:54 PM
This is getting extremely weird. So this American Synod got autonomy from Milan Synod in February and now the American Synod breaks communion with Milan Synod due to Ecumenism. Since it's rather doubtful that the Milan Synod has changed since February doesn't this mean that American Synod got autonomy from Ecumenists?

"Weird" is absolutely the correct word for this!  Pretty soon, if things "progress" (I use that term very loosely here!) as they have been, the "American Synod" of the Milan Synod will be breaking communion with itself in it's effort to not be in communion with those who are not in communion with themselves already  ??? ::).   Wowie Zowie  8)!

Are these folks for real?  Or are they not for real?  Or are they really not really real for real?

Eeek--I've just given myself a headache  ;D.

Once upon a time, I tried to trace the supposed "apostolic" succession of these guys.  I finally decided that I wasn't quite so masochistic as to continue to try unraveling that particular ball of string.  Now *there* was a headache!  Sheesh!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: mike on April 04, 2011, 03:34:19 PM
Once upon a time, I tried to trace the supposed "apostolic" succession of these guys.  I finally decided that I wasn't quite so masochistic as to continue to try unraveling that particular ball of string.  Now *there* was a headache!  Sheesh!

They have none (according to the mainstream EOC) as they are outside the aforementioned Church.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 04, 2011, 03:36:04 PM
This is getting extremely weird. So this American Synod got autonomy from Milan Synod in February and now the American Synod breaks communion with Milan Synod due to Ecumenism. Since it's rather doubtful that the Milan Synod has changed since February doesn't this mean that American Synod got autonomy from Ecumenists?

It's even weirder for us.

In fact the Milan Synod had changed in January. We had established none of the communications with our current sister Churches, but established communications later. In fact, we were under the impression that this would remain the path of our Synod.

We had been discussing our own autonomy since November.

However, we learned that these dialogues with the MP began at Nativity this year. They were not even mentioned to our Metropolitan when he was in Italy. We discovered them by accident: the Greeks began negotiations with the Russian TOC Synod under Metr Rafail, and the first letter-- indicating the negotiations with any Synod but Moscow-- was written as a response to that.

We honestly had no idea in America what on earth was going on. Hence the force of the individual responses, both public and private. More will be said soon.
Title: Re: Milan Synod Removes American Links From Official Sites
Post by: Suaiden on April 04, 2011, 03:43:51 PM
The MP should teach the Milan Synod what 'autonomous' mean before accepting them.

Oh, I am sure the good folks involved in the negotiations will accept whatever words on paper they get, sadly.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: J Michael on April 04, 2011, 03:50:19 PM
This is getting extremely weird. So this American Synod got autonomy from Milan Synod in February and now the American Synod breaks communion with Milan Synod due to Ecumenism. Since it's rather doubtful that the Milan Synod has changed since February doesn't this mean that American Synod got autonomy from Ecumenists?

It's even weirder for us.

In fact the Milan Synod had changed in January. We had established none of the communications with our current sister Churches, but established communications later. In fact, we were under the impression that this would remain the path of our Synod.

We had been discussing our own autonomy since November.

However, we learned that these dialogues with the MP began at Nativity this year. They were not even mentioned to our Metropolitan when he was in Italy. We discovered them by accident: the Greeks began negotiations with the Russian TOC Synod under Metr Rafail, and the first letter-- indicating the negotiations with any Synod but Moscow-- was written as a response to that.

We honestly had no idea in America what on earth was going on. Hence the force of the individual responses, both public and private. More will be said soon.

But does any of this matter to *anybody* at all other than those inside your group?  That is, unless you were actually exploring communion with mainstream Orthodox Christianity in a serious and realistic manner.  And then my question above would become very relevant and important.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 04, 2011, 03:54:07 PM
http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2011/04/american-and-european-metropolias-no.html

"Furthermore, the Greek Sister Synod had issued a statement only a few months ago declaring the Mysteries of the Patriarchates to be invalid. This along with the American and Greek Sister Synods insistence upon the European Synod adopting a clearer stance provoked factions within the European Synod to flare up and 'seize' control. After a few days of these pro-unionist sentiments being expressed on Milan's official Italian website, there were heated responses and contacts. Matters devolved rather quickly, especially with the infamous Bishop Abundius in control effectively of the European Synod. Bishop Abundius made clear that he desired a union with the Patriarchates, and especially with the Moscow Patriarchate, and he would not tolerate statements that contradicted this, let alone that called into question the grace or salvific character of the Mysteries and ecclesial actions of the Moscow Patriarchate, or any other World Orthodox Patriarchate.

While an investigation was still being conducted on the part of sources in Europe (including the Greek Sister Church of the Milan Synod, as well as the American Sister Church), a statement was published which ended the communion between the American and Greek Churches and the Synod in Milan. The statement can be found here:

http://ihtis.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/statement-2/

It makes clear, among other things, that the Synod in Milan will seek union with the MP under any circumstances, and that it will punish any relcacitrant clergy in Italy who refuse; as well as stating that it has ended any liturgical communion with any Old Calendarist Orthodox Church or with those it had formerly been in communion with (i.e., the American, Greek, and Bulgarian Synods). It further commands its clergy to commemorate the Patriarch of Moscow, and the MP's Metropolitan of Moldova."
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: kijabeboy03 on April 04, 2011, 04:02:44 PM
They were once part of the Church and they still use the name Orthodox and claim Orthodoxy, so I would say it still effects us (whether we like it or not).
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: jah777 on April 04, 2011, 04:05:06 PM
This is getting extremely weird. So this American Synod got autonomy from Milan Synod in February and now the American Synod breaks communion with Milan Synod due to Ecumenism. Since it's rather doubtful that the Milan Synod has changed since February doesn't this mean that American Synod got autonomy from Ecumenists?

The apostolic succession of the majority of Greek Old Calendarists can be said to derive from the New Calendar Ecumenist Abp Theophil (Ionescu), so this is nothing new.  When the Old Calendarists in Greece that were formerly led by Met Chrysostom of Florina found themselves without any bishops after the repose of Met Chrysostom in 1955, Abp Theophil (Ionescu) and Abp Seraphim of Chicago (both of ROCOR, but acting without approval from the Synod) consecrated Abp Akakios (Pappas) in 1960 to serve the Greek Old Calendarists.  Ironically, Abp Theophil was on the New Calendar at the time of the consecration while Abp Akakios’ group of Old Calendarists officially considered sacraments performed by New Calendar clergy and hierarchs to be devoid of any sacramental grace.  Abp Theophil later became increasingly ecumenistic, even commemorating Pope Paul the VI in 1970 (http://rocorstudies.org/?sid=135&aid=10861&idpage=lives_of_bishops).  

Milan has been trying for years to get one of the Patriarchates to receive them, and historically Milan itself has not been very concerned with the calendar issue or ecumenism, so you could say that the new “American Metopolia” has their succession from an Ecumenist Synod (Milan), but so do most of the Greek Old Calendarists thanks to Abp Theophil.  If you look at the history, every Old Calendarist bishop can be traced back to succession from New Calendar bishops involved in ecumenism.  In other words, if you apply their ecclesiological algorithm historically, neither they or anyone else can be said to have true bishops with true grace-filled mysteries.
Title: Re: Milan Synod Removes American Links From Official Sites
Post by: jah777 on April 04, 2011, 04:18:40 PM
The MP should teach the Milan Synod what 'autonomous' mean before accepting them.

Oh, I am sure the good folks involved in the negotiations will accept whatever words on paper they get, sadly.

Hello there, Fr. Joseph!  This does pose a good question.  I remember that you posted a very good article on the Internet years ago by Fr. Victor Melehov concerning HOCNA's dubious canonicity, particularly asking how HOCNA can claim to be autonomous without belonging to an autocephalous church.  I thought at the time that you considered the subject of HOCNA’s self-appointed autonomy to be very problematic.  How does this issue relate to your present circumstances?  What autocephalous church is the Autonomous Metropolia of Milan a member of?  If you are a self-governing part of an autocephalous church (according to your own ecclesiology), who is the chief hierarch of that autocephalous church?     
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: J Michael on April 04, 2011, 04:49:11 PM
This is getting extremely weird. So this American Synod got autonomy from Milan Synod in February and now the American Synod breaks communion with Milan Synod due to Ecumenism. Since it's rather doubtful that the Milan Synod has changed since February doesn't this mean that American Synod got autonomy from Ecumenists?

The apostolic succession of the majority of Greek Old Calendarists can be said to derive from the New Calendar Ecumenist Abp Theophil (Ionescu), so this is nothing new.  When the Old Calendarists in Greece that were formerly led by Met Chrysostom of Florina found themselves without any bishops after the repose of Met Chrysostom in 1955, Abp Theophil (Ionescu) and Abp Seraphim of Chicago (both of ROCOR, but acting without approval from the Synod) consecrated Abp Akakios (Pappas) in 1960 to serve the Greek Old Calendarists.  Ironically, Abp Theophil was on the New Calendar at the time of the consecration while Abp Akakios’ group of Old Calendarists officially considered sacraments performed by New Calendar clergy and hierarchs to be devoid of any sacramental grace.  Abp Theophil later became increasingly ecumenistic, even commemorating Pope Paul the VI in 1970 (http://rocorstudies.org/?sid=135&aid=10861&idpage=lives_of_bishops).  

Milan has been trying for years to get one of the Patriarchates to receive them, and historically Milan itself has not been very concerned with the calendar issue or ecumenism, so you could say that the new “American Metopolia” has their succession from an Ecumenist Synod (Milan), but so do most of the Greek Old Calendarists thanks to Abp Theophil.  If you look at the history, every Old Calendarist bishop can be traced back to succession from New Calendar bishops involved in ecumenism.  In other words, if you apply their ecclesiological algorithm historically, neither they or anyone else can be said to have true bishops with true grace-filled mysteries.


My headache just got worse  ;).
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: J Michael on April 04, 2011, 05:13:56 PM
Isn't this already being discussed in 2 other concurrent threads here?  Was a 3rd thread really necessary?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Asteriktos on April 04, 2011, 05:19:50 PM
Isn't this already being discussed in 2 other concurrent threads here?  Was a 3rd thread really necessary?

The other threads don't link to his blog, this one does :P  Not that I'm above shameless self-promotion myself, when the time is right...
Title: Re: Milan Synod Removes American Links From Official Sites
Post by: Suaiden on April 04, 2011, 05:24:01 PM
Hello there, Fr. Joseph!  This does pose a good question.  I remember that you posted a very good article on the Internet years ago by Fr. Victor Melehov concerning HOCNA's dubious canonicity, particularly asking how HOCNA can claim to be autonomous without belonging to an autocephalous church.  I thought at the time that you considered the subject of HOCNA’s self-appointed autonomy to be very problematic.  How does this issue relate to your present circumstances? 

Well, these are very good questions and may shed more insight into the historical thinking behind the Western Synod, but I don't think the HOCNA situation is totally applicable in the circumstances... I will see if I can help but the answers will probably not, in a quick post, be very satisfying.

First, let's touch upon the HOCNA matter, and why it became problematic. With the death of Archbishop Auxentios and the separation of Abp Maximos and Athanasios of Larisa, the HOCNA was in the unenviable position of having effectively three American diocesan Bishops (one reportedly made without Synodal permission, but I doubt that claim) widowed to elect a new Primate in Greece. Due to a dearth of candidates, the HOCNA (doing the best they could under their circumstances) declared Athens vacant and made Metr Makarios the locum tenens of the see. I believe that was in 1995 or 1996.

However, HOCNA's actions in 2001 which Fr Victor protested were that five years later, no mission work was done in Greece nor attempts to establish a first-hierarch, but without reason they dissolved the TOC of Greece. (How true that is can be questioned, which I didn't consider. They did enter into negotiations with the Makarios Synod, and they are currently in negotiation with the Synod of Abp Kallinikos). Here we run into a question of motives. The HOCNA Bishops basically take the position that calling themselves the TOC of Greece was a legal fiction and that this would open the possibility for negotiation under another Synod. The reality is that both those things were true. Fr Victor's position was that because the TOC of Greece had become a legal fiction, they had a responsibility to make an Archbishop of Athens immediately, calling any other actions they took into question. Well, technically, that isn't true immediately after the fact but after five years the argument becomes valid. Giving themselves autonomy in that position lends credibility to his argument that this was grasping for power.  Metr Moses' current position, however, seems to find balance between these two positions-- which is that after recognizing the validity of the TOC of Greece with Abp Kallinikos, it becomes a necessity to drop any pretense of independence until it is granted by the Synod of same. Of course, the TOC of Greece under Abp Kallinikos already has such a Synod in America, so it would simply be a matter of merging the two.

Quote
What autocephalous church is the Autonomous Metropolia of Milan a member of?  If you are a self-governing part of an autocephalous church (according to your own ecclesiology), who is the chief hierarch of that autocephalous church? 

First, the official name of the Church is "Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of Western Europe and the Americas".

(Oh boy.... time for me to duck now before stuff gets thrown at me). Technically, both the sees of Lisbon (the previous primatial see) and Milan were fully autonomous national Churches, though for practical purposes those Churches were what we would call autocephalous today. The distinction between "autonomy" and "autocephaly" before the schism is considerably more blurry than today, and that ambiguity coupled with the unique situation of restoring old Western sees left the Autonomous Metropolia in the strange position of appealing to a Patriarchate because that confirmation normatively came from Rome (I say normatively because this isn't even formally true either; this developed largely in the last centuries before the schism and was not always used. In at least two cases I can remember, the Orthodox Bishop at the time of the schism in the West rejected the pallium.)

Thus, by the time of this writing, there were in fact three independent national jurisdictions in communion in the Western Synod: that of Milan, Spain, and Germany, America being under the care of Milan being the first see, particularly since Milan wavered between Metropolitan and Patriarchal status. In this regard, Metropolitan Evloghios' formal Tomos of autonomy raised the Americas (and, oddly, the British Isles) to an equal status as Milan. We were regarded not as a daughter Church, but as a sister Church. Abp Abundius' stated position was "they are now formally outside our jurisdiction").

Today's statement marks a decided change in the Synod's actions. Besides *retiring* everyone outside Italy in Europe (we are still investigating to see exactly how that occurred), the Bishops in Italy seem to be placing themselves under the MP in Moldova. This is the same volte-face we saw with the Portuguese Bishops in 1990, but the Synod remains, and we are therefore charged with the responsibility, however feasible, to restore a Metropolitanate in Milan. So one could in theory say that we are in the HOCNA's position of 1995, but we did not place ourselves in this position. The Bishops in Italy, through recent actions, have unfortunately done it for us.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: J Michael on April 04, 2011, 05:29:21 PM
Isn't this already being discussed in 2 other concurrent threads here?  Was a 3rd thread really necessary?

The other threads don't link to his blog, this one does :P  Not that I'm above shameless self-promotion myself, when the time is right...

If by "his blog" you mean this, http://news-nftu.blogspot.com, yes, I'm afraid they do.  And, guess what....he got us discussing on this thread, now, too!  Mission accomplished? 

Btw, I appreciated your use of the adjective "shameless"  ;D.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Michał on April 04, 2011, 05:46:37 PM
Synod of Milan Wishes to come into Union with Moscow

Does it apply to all of the Synod of Milan, including their WR parishes?

Are there any Milan's WR parishes in Europe?

I thought so as I remembered this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfxpbohz0ek) but now I can see that the thing actually happened in the US.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 04, 2011, 06:39:06 PM
If by "his blog" you mean this, http://news-nftu.blogspot.com, yes, I'm afraid they do.  And, guess what....he got us discussing on this thread, now, too!  Mission accomplished? 

Btw, I appreciated your use of the adjective "shameless"  ;D.

Why do you seem content with one thread when they are dealing with three different things? These things are happening as we speak. I assume that the "removal of sites" thread will drop, as there's little left to discuss, but this matters not simply for us, but:

1) for Orthodox traditionalists interested in their Western heritage
2) Western-rite people in canonically problematic situations who want a home in the True Church
3) Traditional Orthodox Synods who have been historically disappointed in the behavior of people in our Synod who know that many of us, including our Metropolia, have been trying to clean up the mess we've made in the past and perhaps open a door to better communication
4) Members of our Sister Churches
5) The Moscow Patriarchate, which should be put on notice that in this deal, all they're getting is Milan (maybe that's all they want? Control of the Lazaretto to have a base in Italy, such as the monstrosity the FSB is sponsoring in France? (http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/russian-cathedral-plan-for-paris-site-sparks-spy-fears/5015397.article))

So to answer your previous question, which I assume motivates this response: it affects a lot of people.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: filipinopilgrim on April 04, 2011, 10:49:05 PM
How about the Latin American Archdiocese under Met. Chrysostom (Celi-Almeida) which recently established communion with the Synod of Milan? With whom are they going?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 04, 2011, 10:53:21 PM
How about the Latin American Archdiocese under Met. Chrysostom (Celi-Almeida) which recently established communion with the Synod of Milan? With whom are they going?

They are not going anywhere-- they are part of the TOC-PC of Metropolitan Anghelos, whose communion Metropolitan John reaffirmed, as well as the sister Churches in Bulgaria and Russia. The only people who are leaving for the MP are the three Bishops in Italy, who in fact broke communion with everyone else this morning. Everything else will stay the same I think.

This is sad, but not devastating to our Synods.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: J Michael on April 05, 2011, 10:19:07 AM
If by "his blog" you mean this, http://news-nftu.blogspot.com, yes, I'm afraid they do.  And, guess what....he got us discussing on this thread, now, too!  Mission accomplished? 

Btw, I appreciated your use of the adjective "shameless"  ;D.

Why do you seem content with one thread when they are dealing with three different things? These things are happening as we speak. I assume that the "removal of sites" thread will drop, as there's little left to discuss, but this matters not simply for us, but:

1) for Orthodox traditionalists interested in their Western heritage
2) Western-rite people in canonically problematic situations who want a home in the True Church
3) Traditional Orthodox Synods who have been historically disappointed in the behavior of people in our Synod who know that many of us, including our Metropolia, have been trying to clean up the mess we've made in the past and perhaps open a door to better communication
4) Members of our Sister Churches
5) The Moscow Patriarchate, which should be put on notice that in this deal, all they're getting is Milan (maybe that's all they want? Control of the Lazaretto to have a base in Italy, such as the monstrosity the FSB is sponsoring in France? (http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/russian-cathedral-plan-for-paris-site-sparks-spy-fears/5015397.article))

So to answer your previous question, which I assume motivates this response: it affects a lot of people.

I'd be interested in knowing, if the numbers are available, just how many people this does affect.  How many people belong to the Milan Synod in the U.S.?  How many in Europe?  How many in South America, etc., etc.? 

Then, just who are your "Sister Churches" and how many people do they account for?

What is your definition of the "True Church", as you put it?  And, approximately how many Western Rite people might there be in "canonically problematic situations" (which I assume, perhaps incorrectly, really means uncanonical)?

I realize any numbers you or anyone else might supply will have to be approximate, but it would be really interesting to know just how many, roughly, we're talking about out of the roughly, what? 300 million Orthodox Christians in the world.

Also, what exactly do you mean by "Orthodox traditionalists", and "Western heritage"?  I'm aware that both ROCOR and the Antiochians both have Western Rite liturgies and parishes.  How much more "traditional" does one need to be?

As for being "content with one thread....", I was actually quite content with *2*  ;D!  I'm sure you're quite aware that many things are frequently discussed within the context of even a single thread, so when 3 appear in rapid succession about roughly the same thing (or should I say, different aspects of the same general topic, i.e. the Milan Synod), it does make me wonder about what was referred to above as "self-promotion".
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Agabus on April 05, 2011, 12:50:46 PM
Also, what exactly do you mean by "Orthodox traditionalists", and "Western heritage"?  I'm aware that both ROCOR and the Antiochians both have Western Rite liturgies and parishes.  How much more "traditional" does one need to be?
Perhaps I speak out of turn, but I believe Milan finds the WRO practiced by ROCOR and the Antiochians problematic because some of their liturgies are basically 'doxified rites produced by schismatic/heterodox communions. IIRC, the WRO practiced by Milan is a resurrected form of a western liturgy (Sarum? York? Gallican? A little help here?) that was extant pre-schism.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: J Michael on April 05, 2011, 01:49:13 PM
Also, what exactly do you mean by "Orthodox traditionalists", and "Western heritage"?  I'm aware that both ROCOR and the Antiochians both have Western Rite liturgies and parishes.  How much more "traditional" does one need to be?
Perhaps I speak out of turn, but I believe Milan finds the WRO practiced by ROCOR and the Antiochians problematic because some of their liturgies are basically 'doxified rites produced by schismatic/heterodox communions. IIRC, the WRO practiced by Milan is a resurrected form of a western liturgy (Sarum? York? Gallican? A little help here?) that was extant pre-schism.

No, I don't think you speak out of turn at all.  Your answer goes a little way to clarifying where these folks are coming from.  Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it *seems* that just about the only "Orthodox"  the new American so-called "metropolia" of the M.S. finds "acceptable" is.....themselves.  If that is, indeed, the case, how very sad and lonely that must be to be so isolated and cut-off from the rest of Christianity!

I eagerly await a response from Suaiden to my questions above.  The answers should be edifying.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FrAugustineFetter on April 05, 2011, 03:17:49 PM
Hello Michael and friends.

I'm Hierodeacon Augustine, and I'm a member of the Automous Orthodox Metropolia of Americas and British Isles (which is the American Archdiocese of the Milan Synod that was made independent before the Milan Synod broke communion with us and our Greek and Bulgarian sister synods). 

I'll let Fr. Joseph answer the ecclesial questions and I'll answer the liturgical questions (though these are all related).  Our diference with the Western rite as practiced in the Antiochian Church and in the churches under the Moscow Patriarchate (rocor,etc), stem from our belief that any Liturgy that is based upon heterodox principles from inception is completely unacceptable.  For example, the various versions of the PrayerBook liturgies (many are used i these aforemention churches).  The Tridentine recension of the Roman Rite is considered to be provisionally acceptable is changes are made (no filioque, no unleavened bread, add an epiklesis, etc), since the Tridentine rite represents a skeletal and reduced version of the older Western Orthodox liturgies.  Therefore, it could be provisionally used until such time as older texts could be translated and approved.  For Divine Office texts, we have published all 35 of our volumes here:
http://orthodoxengland.blogspot.com/
These are mostly texts for the Hours that have been worked on for 30 or so years; the proper parts or variable parts of the Mass liturgy have not been all scanned.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 05, 2011, 03:56:35 PM
I'd be interested in knowing, if the numbers are available, just how many people this does affect.  How many people belong to the Milan Synod in the U.S.?  How many in Europe?  How many in South America, etc., etc.? 


Me too! If you can't get accurate numbers from the official Churches (which are extremely difficult) then it's extremely difficult to ask them from us, since we've never counted. Remember that official Orthodox census recently taken which had to "throw in the HOCNA" and still came up with less than a million "official" Orthodox in North America? The official OCA site still takes liberties of rounding it off to a possible six million!

I would say in answer to your first two questions, it affects a few thousand in each (probably a little less then that in the US but a little more than that in Europe were I to just guess), though we have no accurate count. We have two parishes in Central America, but a sister Church in South America with a few thousand more faithful scattered in a number of parishes.

Quote
Then, just who are your "Sister Churches" and how many people do they account for?

We have three sister Churches, which in fact are very large, but do not comprise the largest True Orthodox jurisdictions in their native regions. That said, the percentage of True Orthodox is somewhat higher.

Quote
What is your definition of the "True Church", as you put it? 


The True Church is the One Jesus Christ founded for the salvation of our souls. Furthermore, the True Church is composed of the Right-Believing Bishops throughout the world, who have maintained fidelity to the faith "once delivered to the saints". They have maintained the Orthodox faith in the face of persecution and open apostasy.

Quote
And, approximately how many Western Rite people might there be in "canonically problematic situations" (which I assume, perhaps incorrectly, really means uncanonical)?

Well, I was thinking of Western Rite Antiochians who might have been received in by confession and think they are actually in a proper Western and Orthodox Church.

Quote
I realize any numbers you or anyone else might supply will have to be approximate, but it would be really interesting to know just how many, roughly, we're talking about out of the roughly, what? 300 million Orthodox Christians in the world.

I believe that number is inflated but that Traditional Orthodox make up 10%-20% of any official numbers, based on my experience.

Quote
Also, what exactly do you mean by "Orthodox traditionalists", and "Western heritage"?  I'm aware that both ROCOR and the Antiochians both have Western Rite liturgies and parishes.  How much more "traditional" does one need to be?

Considering the ROCOR-MP's (not the whole ROCOR) assigned Western Rite representative in America believes that the Orthodox West should eat meat on Sundays of Lent (that being the most recent and egregious example of a public statement that immediately comes to mind), and Antiochians basically have Roman Catholic and Anglican services under Metr Philip, we do not use the traditional Orthodox Western forms to condemn or confuse the misled, but give them the opportunity to experience the True and Saving Orthodox Faith the way their forefathers did many centuries ago and before the schism, praying the same way they did and staying in better and closer relations with the Holy Saints and Fathers of the West, subject to the canonical teaching of the Church.

I hope that answers your question of "how much more "traditional" does one need to be".

You then wrote:

Quote
Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it *seems* that just about the only "Orthodox"  the new American so-called "metropolia" of the M.S. finds "acceptable" is.....themselves. If that is, indeed, the case, how very sad and lonely that must be to be so isolated and cut-off from the rest of Christianity!

Well, that's just silly. First off, we have sister churches, so that isn't true. As for other Traditional Orthodox jurisdictions, until a couple of instigators began a "paper war" against our people, we had started to reach out in friendship to a couple of different Traditional Orthodox jurisdictions. We still do, and most of us try to maintain good relations across the board with True Orthodox of all different jurisdictions. I wouldn't say we're 100% successful, but we do our best to stay friends.

If anything, the success of apostate World Orthodoxy has been to convince the confessors throughout the world that they were alone, to try to drive them to despair. Besides the fact that in Christ we are NEVER alone, but with those who confess the faith, we do our best to reach out to the isolated True Orthodox wherever we can and offer what comfort that we are able.

Second, I have been cut off from "the rest of Christianity" ever since I was baptized into THE CHURCH.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Alpo on April 05, 2011, 04:14:28 PM
The Tridentine recension of the Roman Rite is considered to be provisionally acceptable is changes are made (no filioque, no unleavened bread, add an epiklesis, etc), since the Tridentine rite represents a skeletal and reduced version of the older Western Orthodox liturgies.  Therefore, it could be provisionally used until such time as older texts could be translated and approved.

Welcome to the forum, father!

How your WR differs from Tridentine practices? Of course, it's pre-Schism but is it really that different?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: J Michael on April 05, 2011, 04:18:34 PM
Hello Michael and friends.

I'm Hierodeacon Augustine, and I'm a member of the Automous Orthodox Metropolia of Americas and British Isles (which is the American Archdiocese of the Milan Synod that was made independent before the Milan Synod broke communion with us and our Greek and Bulgarian sister synods). 

I'll let Fr. Joseph answer the ecclesial questions and I'll answer the liturgical questions (though these are all related).  Our diference with the Western rite as practiced in the Antiochian Church and in the churches under the Moscow Patriarchate (rocor,etc), stem from our belief that any Liturgy that is based upon heterodox principles from inception is completely unacceptable.  For example, the various versions of the PrayerBook liturgies (many are used i these aforemention churches).  The Tridentine recension of the Roman Rite is considered to be provisionally acceptable is changes are made (no filioque, no unleavened bread, add an epiklesis, etc), since the Tridentine rite represents a skeletal and reduced version of the older Western Orthodox liturgies.  Therefore, it could be provisionally used until such time as older texts could be translated and approved.  For Divine Office texts, we have published all 35 of our volumes here:
http://orthodoxengland.blogspot.com/
These are mostly texts for the Hours that have been worked on for 30 or so years; the proper parts or variable parts of the Mass liturgy have not been all scanned.


Thanks for that.

What, exactly, are those "heterodox principles"?  It sounds kind of vague.  And how is the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or that of St. Basil unacceptable?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on April 05, 2011, 04:44:32 PM
  And how is the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or that of St. Basil unacceptable?

Forgive me, but I see no disparaging of these Eastern Liturgies in Fr Augustine's response. I have not reviewed our directory lately, which may need updating with new additions, but The Orthodox Metropolia of N & S America and the British Isles is bi-ritual Church with probably slightly more Eastern Rite than Western Rite observing parishes, missions and monastics.

In Christ,
Fr Symeon Salos
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: J Michael on April 05, 2011, 04:58:46 PM
  And how is the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or that of St. Basil unacceptable?

Forgive me, but I see no disparaging of these Eastern Liturgies in Fr Augustine's response. I have not reviewed our directory lately, which may need updating with new additions, but The Orthodox Metropolia of N & S America and the British Isles is bi-ritual Church with probably slightly more Eastern Rite than Western Rite observing parishes, missions and monastics.

In Christ,
Fr Symeon Salos

But neither did he say that they were acceptable.  Are they?  And perhaps you know what those "heterodox principles" are that he referred to.  If so, would you be able to explain what they are and why they're unacceptable?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 05, 2011, 05:03:39 PM
But neither did he say that they were acceptable.  Are they?  And perhaps you know what those "heterodox principles" are that he referred to.  If so, would you be able to explain what they are and why they're unacceptable?

Oh, this is ridiculous. At least to me it was obvious Fr Augustine was making a reference to your statement that "Also, what exactly do you mean by "Orthodox traditionalists", and "Western heritage"?  I'm aware that both ROCOR and the Antiochians both have Western Rite liturgies and parishes.  How much more "traditional" does one need to be?" and your reply to the statement by Agabus.

The Eastern Liturgies were always acceptable! It is the modern pastiche "Western rites" you said were good enough that we find largely unacceptable.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: augustin717 on April 05, 2011, 05:18:24 PM
This "bishop" Avondios is Romanian and he left the monastery back in Romania to live with his lover, IIRC. He used to be a frequent guest at various TV shows. After that he disappeared and then, lo and behold, he reappears as bishop Avondios. He wants to join the Russians probably because the Romanians know about him and he wouldn't stand a chance.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: J Michael on April 05, 2011, 05:21:13 PM
I'd be interested in knowing, if the numbers are available, just how many people this does affect.  How many people belong to the Milan Synod in the U.S.?  How many in Europe?  How many in South America, etc., etc.? 


Me too! If you can't get accurate numbers from the official Churches (which are extremely difficult) then it's extremely difficult to ask them from us, since we've never counted. Remember that official Orthodox census recently taken which had to "throw in the HOCNA" and still came up with less than a million "official" Orthodox in North America? The official OCA site still takes liberties of rounding it off to a possible six million!

I would say in answer to your first two questions, it affects a few thousand in each (probably a little less then that in the US but a little more than that in Europe were I to just guess), though we have no accurate count. We have two parishes in Central America, but a sister Church in South America with a few thousand more faithful scattered in a number of parishes.

Quote
Then, just who are your "Sister Churches" and how many people do they account for?

We have three sister Churches, which in fact are very large, but do not comprise the largest True Orthodox jurisdictions in their native regions. That said, the percentage of True Orthodox is somewhat higher.

Quote
What is your definition of the "True Church", as you put it? 


The True Church is the One Jesus Christ founded for the salvation of our souls. Furthermore, the True Church is composed of the Right-Believing Bishops throughout the world, who have maintained fidelity to the faith "once delivered to the saints". They have maintained the Orthodox faith in the face of persecution and open apostasy.

Quote
And, approximately how many Western Rite people might there be in "canonically problematic situations" (which I assume, perhaps incorrectly, really means uncanonical)?

Well, I was thinking of Western Rite Antiochians who might have been received in by confession and think they are actually in a proper Western and Orthodox Church.

Quote
I realize any numbers you or anyone else might supply will have to be approximate, but it would be really interesting to know just how many, roughly, we're talking about out of the roughly, what? 300 million Orthodox Christians in the world.

I believe that number is inflated but that Traditional Orthodox make up 10%-20% of any official numbers, based on my experience.

Quote
Also, what exactly do you mean by "Orthodox traditionalists", and "Western heritage"?  I'm aware that both ROCOR and the Antiochians both have Western Rite liturgies and parishes.  How much more "traditional" does one need to be?

Considering the ROCOR-MP's (not the whole ROCOR) assigned Western Rite representative in America believes that the Orthodox West should eat meat on Sundays of Lent (that being the most recent and egregious example of a public statement that immediately comes to mind), and Antiochians basically have Roman Catholic and Anglican services under Metr Philip, we do not use the traditional Orthodox Western forms to condemn or confuse the misled, but give them the opportunity to experience the True and Saving Orthodox Faith the way their forefathers did many centuries ago and before the schism, praying the same way they did and staying in better and closer relations with the Holy Saints and Fathers of the West, subject to the canonical teaching of the Church.

I hope that answers your question of "how much more "traditional" does one need to be".

You then wrote:

Quote
Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it *seems* that just about the only "Orthodox"  the new American so-called "metropolia" of the M.S. finds "acceptable" is.....themselves. If that is, indeed, the case, how very sad and lonely that must be to be so isolated and cut-off from the rest of Christianity!

Well, that's just silly. First off, we have sister churches, so that isn't true. As for other Traditional Orthodox jurisdictions, until a couple of instigators began a "paper war" against our people, we had started to reach out in friendship to a couple of different Traditional Orthodox jurisdictions. We still do, and most of us try to maintain good relations across the board with True Orthodox of all different jurisdictions. I wouldn't say we're 100% successful, but we do our best to stay friends.

If anything, the success of apostate World Orthodoxy has been to convince the confessors throughout the world that they were alone, to try to drive them to despair. Besides the fact that in Christ we are NEVER alone, but with those who confess the faith, we do our best to reach out to the isolated True Orthodox wherever we can and offer what comfort that we are able.

Second, I have been cut off from "the rest of Christianity" ever since I was baptized into THE CHURCH.

Thanks for your reply!  Some more questions, if you don't mind, in response to your reply.

1.  So, at a rough guess, maybe 10,000 people out of the 200-300 million considered "Orthodox"?

2. Who and where are these "Sister Churches"?  What makes them "sisters"?

3. Are you saying that the WR Antiochians are neither properly Western and/or Orthodox?

4. What does a "Right-Believing" bishop believe that makes him "right-believing" and others wrong-believing?  Are the only "right-believing" bishops those within what you refer to as True Orthodoxy?  Are ROCOR bishops right- or wrong-believing?  Are the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate right- or wrong-believing? 

5. What's the difference between Orthodox, True Orthodox, and Traditional Orthodox?

6. Are you saying or implying that out of say roughly 200-300 million "Orthodox" in the world, only a few thousand (10,000-20,000?) are *really* Orthodox and the rest of us are misled apostates?  Have you ever entertained the possibility that it just might be the other way 'round?

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: J Michael on April 05, 2011, 05:23:38 PM
But neither did he say that they were acceptable.  Are they?  And perhaps you know what those "heterodox principles" are that he referred to.  If so, would you be able to explain what they are and why they're unacceptable?

Oh, this is ridiculous. At least to me it was obvious Fr Augustine was making a reference to your statement that "Also, what exactly do you mean by "Orthodox traditionalists", and "Western heritage"?  I'm aware that both ROCOR and the Antiochians both have Western Rite liturgies and parishes.  How much more "traditional" does one need to be?" and your reply to the statement by Agabus.

The Eastern Liturgies were always acceptable! It is the modern pastiche "Western rites" you said were good enough that we find largely unacceptable.

Oh.  No one ever said I was the brightest bulb in the room  ;D.

Ahh, so now, with your answer about the "Western rites", perhaps we're getting somewhere.  So, the Eastern rites are o.k.?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FrAugustineFetter on April 05, 2011, 05:30:04 PM
Hello Friend,

I think you misunderstand my answer, at least in the context.  The Liturgies of Sts. John Chrysostom, Basil, Mark, James, (and Gregory of Nyssa if you count the sometimes used Cappadocan rites), of the Eastern rite are great, wonderful, more than acceptable!  But, so is the Liturgy of St. Gregory Dialogus in its difference usages (by that, I mean, the Mass,not the eastern presanctified), or the Liturgy of St. Isidore (commonly called hte Hispanic or 'Mozarabic' rite).  All the Liturgies of the Church are great!

What I was criticizing was that the Antiochian Archdiocese, and to some extent the rocor,  have accepted  a new Divine Liturgy based upon the old Anglican prayerbook, with Anglican Missal interpolations.  For example, the Eucharistic Prayer in the Anglican prayerbook, was written by a non-Orthodox Zwinglian Protestant Reformed Archbishop of Canterbury (with the help of Martin Bucer, and a few others), and that it is therefore not fit for proper Orthodox usage.  If one is going to use the Western ORthodox rite (and I think half of our people in America do, maybe actually 55%??, as opposed to the majority Eastern Orthodox use), then just use the old Western Orthodox Liturgy and rites, which have been all translated, and in frequent usage for near 20 years now.  I'm sorry if I caused any misunderstanding on your part, friend.Many of us were Eastern rite, and asked our bishops to used an old Orthodox Western rite.
So yes, the Eastern rites are OK!!! T
T
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on April 05, 2011, 05:34:58 PM
This "bishop" Avondios is Romanian and he left the monastery back in Romania to live with his lover, IIRC. He used to be a frequent guest at various TV shows. After that he disappeared and then, lo and behold, he reappears as bishop Avondios. He wants to join the Russians probably because the Romanians know about him and he wouldn't stand a chance.

In the mysterious Way of our Lord the cutting of relations by the Milan Synod from their (now formerly) TOC Sister Churches is a blessing to us since he is not our concern.

Fr Symeon
http://hermitage-journal.blogspot.com/
 (http://hermitage-journal.blogspot.com/)Hermitage Journal

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 05, 2011, 05:35:37 PM
Hello Michael and friends.

I'm Hierodeacon Augustine, and I'm a member of the Automous Orthodox Metropolia of Americas and British Isles (which is the American Archdiocese of the Milan Synod that was made independent before the Milan Synod broke communion with us and our Greek and Bulgarian sister synods). 

I'll let Fr. Joseph answer the ecclesial questions...

You will understand if I refuse to address you as "Father"; you state in your Statement of Monday that my Patriarch is a representative of Satan and I am a priest of Satan

".. the American Sister Church published statements which condemned the Moscow Patriarchate as an abmoniation, and declared that the Patriarchs and the innovating clergy and laity are representatives of Satan..."

http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2011/04/american-and-european-metropolias-no.html

Can you reference the Statements from the Milan Synod condemning our Church as satanic?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FrAugustineFetter on April 05, 2011, 05:36:14 PM
To my Finnish friend, Alpo,

I would say that on a regular Ferial Day which are only perhaps 20% of the days at most. (that is, a Mass celebrated on an ordinary day, with no Procession, Tropes, etc), the Tridentine rite Mass, would appear substantially similar in most respect.  The only differences would be that the Tridentine rite incorporated additional Gallican offertory prayers, and had a separated offering of bread and wine (which are acceptable variations), and the other difference would be, that we use the Offertory Verses, which are dropped by the Tridentine rite, as well as the full Communion verses and psalms, which were also dropped, as well as differences when the Priest is praying the Canon of the Mass (such as extending his arms at the Undes et memores), as well as a few differences in the communion prayers of the priest (which are not heard by the people).  The other difference, is that the pre-Tridentine rites had proper prefaces for almost every single day in the year (the Preface being the changeable prayer prior to the Sanctus), so, we have probably 200, as opposed to the 15 in the Tridentine rite; we also kept all the Prayers of Bowed Heads which are sung after the Post-Communion, but, which were retained in the Tridentine rite only during days in Lent.  
This is just an example of the difference on the least differential days betwen the older usages, and the reformed Missal of Pius the V.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: augustin717 on April 05, 2011, 05:54:17 PM
His sins notwithstanding, it is  good that Avondios, due to  his origins, I guess, still has some ecclesiastical commonsense left, that moves him towards the right direction, out of the murky waters of "true, genuine, patristic, old calendar etc" vagantes.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 05, 2011, 06:04:10 PM
Thanks for your reply!  Some more questions, if you don't mind, in response to your reply.

1.  So, at a rough guess, maybe 10,000 people out of the 200-300 million considered "Orthodox"?

Well, no, not at all. This has a ripple effect. I would say it directly affects a few thousand people, and indirectly affects many more thousands. 200-300 million? Really? I assume you are including Russia's official numbers of 100-150 million, even though the truth is probably less than 20% of that, with only 1% of the population actually practicing? Not realizing that the government statistics inadvertently include True Orthodox in their interviews, who have hundreds of parishes throughout Russia?

Quote
2. Who and where are these "Sister Churches"?  What makes them "sisters"?

There are True Orthodox Synods with whom we are in communion in Greece, Bulgaria, Ukraine, and Russia. This is an increasingly common development after the the ROCOR-MP union period (2000-2007). As much of True Orthodoxy has been historically splintered, this is a natural development in light of increased communications, thanks to better and freer travel, the Internet, et cetera.

Quote
3. Are you saying that the WR Antiochians are neither properly Western and/or Orthodox?

I think their hearts are oftentimes in the in the right place. But they are still using a heterodox rite, usually have not been sufficiently catechized into Orthodoxy and they often have mass receptions. But to the literal answer to the question, I'd say "yes", they are often using incorrect forms foregin to Orthodoxy and their confession of faith has too many holdovers from their previous confession.

Quote
4. What does a "Right-Believing" bishop believe that makes him "right-believing" and others wrong-believing?

They adhere obediently to the principles of the Faith once delivered to the Saints and do not use their power to excuse themselves from doing so.

Quote
  Are the only "right-believing" bishops those within what you refer to as True Orthodoxy?


Yes, but I do not limit True Orthodoxy to our four sister-jurisdictions. I believe all jurisdictions who have preserved the faith, which have broken communion with the world-Orthodox historically in the 20th century and refuse to commune with them until they repent of their heresies, are Orthodox. This numbers in the millions of people, literally thousands of parishes, and numbers about 125-150 Bishops.

So much for a tiny fragment.

Quote
Are ROCOR bishops right- or wrong-believing?

Those Bishops of the ROCOR who refused to go with the union and maintained a proper confession of faith are right-believing. Those who have joined with the MP, their actions speak for themselves, but I believe there are only six or so Bishops left who actually *united* with Moscow, the rest having been made after the union, thus being MP bishops.

Quote
Are the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate right- or wrong-believing? 

I believe the vast majority of the Moscow Patriarchate bishops are nothing more than well-paid civil servants, who are employees of the atheist state. At times committed atheists were "made" Bishops in the MP. There is no apostolic succession there, and any that one had before they joined them is forfeited.

Quote
5. What's the difference between Orthodox, True Orthodox, and Traditional Orthodox?

Well, if you ask me, there isn't any: they are all the same. But for the sake of clarification, I use the terminology as follows I consider True Orthodox to be part of the wider subset of Traditional Orthodox (which includes people who accept and reject the title "True Orthodox", such as folks in the Synod in Resistance) and Traditional Orthodox in the wider subset of "Orthodox" (which includes anyone who calls himself Orthodox, such as the Antiochians). As I personally see little real difference between people who adhere to traditional and true Orthodoxy, and I don't consider World Orthodox as fully Orthodox, I use all three terms interchangeably-- I make the distinction for the convenience of those outside True Orthodoxy, not those within.

Quote
6. Are you saying or implying that out of say roughly 200-300 million "Orthodox" in the world, only a few thousand (10,000-20,000?) are *really* Orthodox and the rest of us are misled apostates?  Have you ever entertained the possibility that it just might be the other way 'round?

Having lived in Russia, and been in a few jurisdictions, I'd say that out of perhaps 70-100 million "Orthodox" in the world, there are two million, maybe 3 million, True Orthodox in various jurisdictions. So the answer to your first question is "yes". Viritually anyone in the world looking for True Orthodoxy can find it. God will have mercy on the few others not so fortunate. As for World Orthodoxy, it is our task to bring you back to the fullness of the Orthodox faith, bring you back to sanity. What you choose to do with that knowledge, however, is up to you. My experience with World Orthodoxy showed me enough that there is something deeply deficient there, even in the most perfectly celebrated of liturgies; something gutted out of it.

But if you want to believe True Orthodoxy is a couple of thousand people in a cave, you are free to do that too. You'd be wrong, just as you are wrong about your other numbers.

The faith is not determined by numbers. "Groupthink" can never trump the eternal truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and His Holy Church, whose teaching has been the same "everywhere and at all times".
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FrAugustineFetter on April 05, 2011, 06:06:09 PM
Let me correct something to Alpo, I think plain ferial days are now only 15 percent, if that.  They used to be more common, but so many minor feast days (Feasts of 3 Lessons for Vigils) were added as time when on, and so many Octaves, that ferials became extremely infrequent, are became commemorated at Mass, Lauds, and Vespers.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 05, 2011, 06:26:53 PM
Are there Milan clergy in the newly formed Metropolia of America and Britain
who would prefer to remain under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Evloghios
and make the transition into the Russian Orthodox Church when the union
shall take place in the future?  It makes a lot of sense.

If memory serves, about 6 Milan clergy, from American Milan, have moved
into the Russian Church Abroad in the last 18 months.  This present time of
uncertainty will be sure to bring some more.

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 05, 2011, 06:37:17 PM
His sins notwithstanding, it is  good that Avondios, due to  his origins, I guess, still has some ecclesiastical commonsense left, that moves him towards the right direction, out of the murky waters of "true, genuine, patristic, old calendar etc" vagantes.

No offense, but you can have him. :)
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 05, 2011, 06:44:27 PM
http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2011/04/american-and-european-metropolias-no.html

Matters devolved rather quickly, especially with the infamous Bishop Abundius in control effectively of the European Synod. Bishop Abundius made clear that he desired a union with the Patriarchates, and especially with the Moscow Patriarchate, and he would not tolerate statements that contradicted this, let alone that called into question the grace or salvific character of the Mysteries and ecclesial actions of the Moscow Patriarchate, or any other World Orthodox Patriarchate.

Is not Bp Avondios (Dimitrie Bica) taking the risk of bringing his church career to a crashing halt.    It is well known why he had to abandon his position as the Abbot of a Romanian monastery - a simple google.com search with his name will bring his recent past to light.    Surely it is highly unlikely that Moscow would accept, as a Bishop, a man who is so morally compromised?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ROCORthodox on April 05, 2011, 09:38:35 PM
So we have presented here a brand new so-called "American Metropolia" who is not in communion with even ONE part of any Orthodox body in America?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on April 05, 2011, 10:40:00 PM
So we have presented here a brand new so-called "American Metropolia" who is not in communion with even ONE part of any Orthodox body in America?


When did overlapping jurisdictions become the canonical norm? Just asking!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 05, 2011, 11:35:56 PM
So we have presented here a brand new so-called "American Metropolia" who is not in communion with even ONE part of any Orthodox body in America?


When did overlapping jurisdictions become the canonical norm? Just asking!

MAB is able to avoid overlapping jurisdictions in the Americas and Britain by declaring itself the sole Orthodox Church in these areas and proclaiming that any others present there are without the grace of Baptism and the Priesthood.  So - no overlapping jurisdictions on territory claimed by MAB.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 06, 2011, 12:06:59 AM
So we have presented here a brand new so-called "American Metropolia" who is not in communion with even ONE part of any Orthodox body in America?

We believe as a Metropolia (especially under the circumstances) we will be able to work with other True Orthodox jurisdictions in the country. After all, the Metropolia was previously two Archdioceses who were not in communion with others; however, now I believe we will be able to take positive steps forward without any more confusion that seems to now be the norm in Milan. Of course, this does not mean we are signing a bunch of intercommunion statements (nor would any good, sane True Orthodox body expect us to) but we will at least be freer to work together to provide a positive light to Traditional Orthodox Witness which we think will help foster unity, and the eventual canonical order demanded by the canons.

Traditional Orthodox Christians have been through a lot, much at the hands of "official Orthodoxy", and official Orthodoxy hasn't even been able to determine the status of the OCA. Why look to our much smaller houses with an eye to condemnation?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: kijabeboy03 on April 06, 2011, 02:10:20 AM
When Bishop Abbondius was in Romania was he removed as abbot because of actual misconduct or simply because he admitted he was gay? I went through several articles and none mentioned misconduct or allegations of misconduct...
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on April 06, 2011, 04:22:55 AM
When Bishop Abbondius was in Romania was he removed as abbot because of actual misconduct or simply because he admitted he was gay? I went through several articles and none mentioned misconduct or allegations of misconduct...

Isn't this off topic in light of the topic title above?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 06, 2011, 04:34:50 AM
When Bishop Abbondius was in Romania was he removed as abbot because of actual misconduct or simply because he admitted he was gay? I went through several articles and none mentioned misconduct or allegations of misconduct...

Isn't this off topic in light of the topic title above?

I find myself that the person on Bishop Abbundio (Dimitrie Bica) is of significance in the focus of this thread because he is being put forward as the instigator the break in communion of Milan headquarters with the rest of the Milan world and its Sister Churches.     His sexual orientation and history (work in the gay TV industry in Italy, and remember the photo of him in clericals at a Gay Pride March in Rome waving a Romanian flag!) will impact on how Moscow responds to him personally if he desires to enter Moscow as a bishop.   Indeed if he is the chief interlocutor with Moscow ( and he would seem to be) the Milan cause may be doomed since Moscow shies away from these matters.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 06, 2011, 04:44:15 AM
On a blog maintained by Fr Simon-Salos a schemamonk of American Milan, the focus is on Bp Abundius as the man who has hijacked the Milan Synod.  His personal role in this event seems pivotal. 

"The Milan Synod has surrendered its traditionalist struggle to preserve Patristic Orthodox Christianity! The Orthodox Metropolia of Western Europe, once known as the Western European Eparchy of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (under Abp Auxentios of blessed memory), has been hijacked by the Vicar of the Archdiocese of Milan, commonly called the 'Milan Synod'.  Bishop Abundius (pictured here) has taken the Italian contingent of the Milan Synod into official dialogue with the Moscow Patriarchate."

http://hermitage-journal.blogspot.com/
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on April 06, 2011, 04:53:15 AM
On a blog maintained by Fr Simon-Salos a schemamonk of American Milan, ...

Where do you get these attributions? senior monastic? schemamonk? Even the name of our Church is wrong.

bewildered,
Fr Symeon Salos

I still think you are off topic. Go push your agenda in its own thread! Abundios is your problem now, don't take up space here. What does the Moderator think?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 06, 2011, 05:56:05 AM
On a blog maintained by Fr Simon-Salos a schemamonk of American Milan, ...

Where do you get these attributions? senior monastic? schemamonk? Even the name of our Church is wrong.

bewildered,
Fr Symeon Salos

I still think you are off topic. Go push your agenda in its own thread! Abundios is your problem now, don't take up space here. What does the Moderator think?

Wrong name of your Church?  I am sorry if I have it wrong but the documents from Milan which gave America its autonomy are confusing and contain at least two differing names for the new American Church.    I understand how you could be offended by wrong names - the people from American Milan have always insisted on giving my Church a wrong name - ROCOR-MP.  I haved often asked for that to be corrected but it continues to be blazoned across all the American Milan sites.



Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 06, 2011, 06:02:04 AM
[I still think you are off topic. Go push your agenda in its own thread! Abundios is your problem now, don't take up space here. What does the Moderator think?

Dear PapaSymeon,

Bishop Abundius forms an integral part of the OP and is a legitimate part of this thread, imho.  It is being claimed that Bishop Abundius is the prime moving force in the break in communion of the Milan Synod and the American Metropolia - the topic of this thread.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ROCORthodox on April 06, 2011, 09:52:23 AM
So we have presented here a brand new so-called "American Metropolia" who is not in communion with even ONE part of any Orthodox body in America?


When did overlapping jurisdictions become the canonical norm? Just asking!

You are trying to change the subject and avoid the truth.   The so-called "American Metropolia" is in communion with nobody in America, whereas the Orthodox
in this country are all in communion with each other and actually meet to discuss the issue of overlapping jurisdictions.   In other words, there is consent between
the different parts of the Church on this matter but not one of the so-called "True Orthodox" Churches in America will have communion with each other. 

From what I have read on this thread here, the so-called "American Metropolia" claims the Orthodox who sustain
communion with each other are "not True", whereas those who do not have communion with each other are the "True" Church.
This logic plainly uses the "invisible Church" branch theory and is exactly the same logic the protestants use to justify their existence.

This so-called so-called "American Metropolia" is just another protestant sect who basically uses the same arguments as the protestants
do to justify separation from the Church.  Now a group of them has joined OC.net together at almost the same time to come and engage in
"missionary activity" here.

Same old same old.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Shlomlokh on April 06, 2011, 09:56:58 AM
So we have presented here a brand new so-called "American Metropolia" who is not in communion with even ONE part of any Orthodox body in America?


When did overlapping jurisdictions become the canonical norm? Just asking!

You are trying to change the subject and avoid the truth.   The so-called "American Metropolia" is in communion with nobody in America, whereas the Orthodox
in this country are all in communion with each other and actually meet to discuss the issue of overlapping jurisdictions.   In other words, there is consent between
the different parts of the Church on this matter but not one of the so-called "True Orthodox" Churches in America will have communion with each other. 

From what I have read on this thread here, the so-called "American Metropolia" claims the Orthodox who sustain
communion with each other are "not True", whereas those who do not have communion with each other are the "True" Church.
This logic plainly uses the "invisible Church" branch theory and is exactly the same logic the protestants use to justify their existence.

This so-called so-called "American Metropolia" is just another protestant sect who basically uses the same arguments as the protestants
do to justify separation from the Church.  Now a group of them has joined OC.net together at almost the same time to come and engage in
"missionary activity" here.

Same old same old.

Could we call their concept ol' fashioned Protestantism in a different wrapper? That's what it appears to me to be.

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 06, 2011, 10:11:58 AM
Could we call their concept ol' fashioned Protestantism in a different wrapper? That's what it appears to me to be.

Really? We don't teach Protestantism. We don't pray with Protestants. We don't bless Protestant liturgies to be used in the Church. We aren't involved in the WCC and NCC, councils of Protestant origin. We don't mass-receive Protestants because "a baptism in Jesus' name is good enough".

I could call your religion "ol'fashioned Protestantism" in a different wrapper, but I didn't go there. Extend the same courtesy, please.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 06, 2011, 10:22:20 AM
This so-called so-called "American Metropolia" is just another protestant sect who basically uses the same arguments as the protestants
do to justify separation from the Church.  Now a group of them has joined OC.net together at almost the same time to come and engage in
"missionary activity" here.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

At least four of the "protestant sects" to which you refer came from ROCOR, which I assume is where you come from based on your username. Each of those divisions formed because certain clergy and people were able to see past the dishonest gamemanship of the ROCOR-MP hierarchy. Each of those Churches are filled with people who will tell you stories about how "Archbishop this-and-that promised me personally he would never join the Moscow Patriarchate". Thousands of victims. Thousands of lies.

And now you claim that the Traditional Orthodox are the authors of the disunity. No, they believed, and trusted that the Orthodox faith would be preserved and protected. But the hierarchs of the ROCOR-MP traded it in for wordly recognition and filthy lucre, to join with those who bless the destruction of the faith for the sake of rapidly emptying buildings. And the cause of the major schism between the Greek Old Calendarists was the same: a lack of clarity concerning the state Church, which was handing out empty promises to return to tradition and continues to do so today.

DON'T BLAME US FOR THE DISUNITY that so often, your own hierarchs helped create and promote to offer their demented vision of "unity", giving the people a stone for bread, in place of UNITY WITH THE TRUTH. Generations will pass so long as God chooses them to so do, and I promise you, the True Orthodox are starting to work together, and we will solve our problems. We have seen separation and division before. We don't fear it, and we don't run from it, for we are faithful to the teaching of Christ which unites us. "Invisible Church", my foot! We are quite visible, though administratively divided.

Yet your leaders pray with heretics. Your leaders refuse to repent for the murders of Orthodox Christians, which you stupidly call "Protestants". I promise you, no True Orthodox wants such unity!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: augustin717 on April 06, 2011, 10:22:37 AM
When Bishop Abbondius was in Romania was he removed as abbot because of actual misconduct or simply because he admitted he was gay? I went through several articles and none mentioned misconduct or allegations of misconduct...
He left of his own will and he didn't give any reasons upon leaving, until well after that, on tv, on a live show. So, no, there were no allegations of misconduct, but leaving your monastery is pretty irregular, canonically.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ROCORthodox on April 06, 2011, 10:28:39 AM
So we have presented here a brand new so-called "American Metropolia" who is not in communion with even ONE part of any Orthodox body in America?


When did overlapping jurisdictions become the canonical norm? Just asking!

You are trying to change the subject and avoid the truth.   The so-called "American Metropolia" is in communion with nobody in America, whereas the Orthodox
in this country are all in communion with each other and actually meet to discuss the issue of overlapping jurisdictions.   In other words, there is consent between
the different parts of the Church on this matter but not one of the so-called "True Orthodox" Churches in America will have communion with each other. 

From what I have read on this thread here, the so-called "American Metropolia" claims the Orthodox who sustain
communion with each other are "not True", whereas those who do not have communion with each other are the "True" Church.
This logic plainly uses the "invisible Church" branch theory and is exactly the same logic the protestants use to justify their existence.

This so-called so-called "American Metropolia" is just another protestant sect who basically uses the same arguments as the protestants
do to justify separation from the Church.  Now a group of them has joined OC.net together at almost the same time to come and engage in
"missionary activity" here.

Same old same old.

Could we call their concept ol' fashioned Protestantism in a different wrapper? That's what it appears to me to be.

In Christ,
Andrew

Exactly(!) because just like the protestants, this new group justifies their existence in opposition to the Church by claiming the Church is in error.   This is the essence of protestantism, including their employment of the "branch theory" which claims the Church consists of individual parts who do not recognize each other in communion.   At the same time they claim the Orthodox who have maintained their ancient communion with each other are NOT the "True Church".  

In this they ARE protestants to the core.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 06, 2011, 10:33:52 AM
Exactly(!) because just like the protestants, this new group justifies their existence in opposition to the Church by claiming the Church is in error.   This is the essence of protestantism, including their employment of the "branch theory" which claims the Church consists of individual parts who do not recognize each other in communion.   At the same time they claim the Orthodox who have maintained their ancient communion with each other are NOT the "True Church".  

In this they ARE protestants to the core.

Doesn't the leader of your communion call Rome a "sister Church"?

Doesn't the leader of the Romanians in your communion recognize the apostolicity of the Anglicans?

THAT is the branch theory. Look it up before you say something so ridiculous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_theory

So don't be silly. I recognize as Orthodox those who believe and adhere to the Orthodox faith. I accept that Bishops (being Bishops) will argue and sometimes break communion with each other. But I believe their faith is the same.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: augustin717 on April 06, 2011, 10:37:40 AM
Romanians do not recognize any "apostolicity" of the Anglicans. When did they ever receive one by vesting?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ROCORthodox on April 06, 2011, 10:48:01 AM
Romanians do not recognize any "apostolicity" of the Anglicans. When did they ever receive one by vesting?

This is exactly what the protestants do.  They twist information around to make the justification for their being separate from the Church.  You will see all sorts of long winded arguments laid out, but the fact remains they do NOT have communion with each other and they claim the ancient communion of Orthodox Churches is OUTSIDE the Church. 


We shall see from them all sorts of smoke and mirrors to justify their protestantism.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 06, 2011, 10:54:20 AM
Romanians do not recognize any "apostolicity" of the Anglicans. When did they ever receive one by vesting?

Sorry, I was thinking of Cyprus (more below). However, while I realized I may have confused the statements of Romania and Cyprus, the official statement of their joint commission in 1936 was the following on the matter:
"The Rumanian Commission made the following Declaration.
    "Having considered the conclusions of the papers on the Apostolic Succession, Holy Orders, Holy Eucharist, Holy Mysteries in general, and Tradition and Justification,
    "And having considered the declarations of the Anglican Delegation on these questions, which declarations are in accordance with the Doctrine of the Orthodox Church,
    "The Rumanian Orthodox Commission unanimously recommends the Holy Synod (of the Rumanian Orthodox Church) to recognise the validity of Anglican Orders."

The Anglican Delegation received the Declaration with due acknowledgement."

This was a commission composed of Bishops of the Romanian Church.
http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/bucharest1935.html

That said, I was thinking of Cyprus which in 2008 REAFFIRMED their recognition.
http://philorthodox.blogspot.com/2008/07/orthodox-church-of-cyprus-reaffirms.html

'Unfortunately, after the Third Lambeth Conference, which was held in the year 1888, when a particular effort was made for the promotion of the relations between the Orthodox and the Anglican Church, no substantial progress has been made in this area though a most fervent desire for their union exists in both our Churches. The Orthodox Church of Cyprus, encouraged by the progress made at the time went ahead, as is known, in the year 1923 and recognised the validity of Anglican ordainments in the hope that this would be followed by more moves towards unity between our Churches.'

Thank you for your correction.

Further, if they recognized their orders, there is no need to receive them by vesting.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ROCORthodox on April 06, 2011, 11:05:03 AM
Romanians do not recognize any "apostolicity" of the Anglicans. When did they ever receive one by vesting?

Sorry, I was thinking of Cyprus (more below). However, while I realized I may have confused the statements of Romania and Cyprus, the official statement of their joint commission in 1936 was the following on the matter:
"The Rumanian Commission made the following Declaration.
    "Having considered the conclusions of the papers on the Apostolic Succession, Holy Orders, Holy Eucharist, Holy Mysteries in general, and Tradition and Justification,
    "And having considered the declarations of the Anglican Delegation on these questions, which declarations are in accordance with the Doctrine of the Orthodox Church,
    "The Rumanian Orthodox Commission unanimously recommends the Holy Synod (of the Rumanian Orthodox Church) to recognise the validity of Anglican Orders."

The Anglican Delegation received the Declaration with due acknowledgement."

This was a commission composed of Bishops of the Romanian Church.
http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/bucharest1935.html

That said, I was thinking of Cyprus which in 2008 REAFFIRMED their recognition.
http://philorthodox.blogspot.com/2008/07/orthodox-church-of-cyprus-reaffirms.html

'Unfortunately, after the Third Lambeth Conference, which was held in the year 1888, when a particular effort was made for the promotion of the relations between the Orthodox and the Anglican Church, no substantial progress has been made in this area though a most fervent desire for their union exists in both our Churches. The Orthodox Church of Cyprus, encouraged by the progress made at the time went ahead, as is known, in the year 1923 and recognised the validity of Anglican ordainments in the hope that this would be followed by more moves towards unity between our Churches.'

Thank you for your correction.

Further, if they recognized their orders, there is no need to receive them by vesting.

Aside from quoting protestant sources to "prove" a point (but of course!) , this person purposely skipped the all-important fact that NOBODY in the Orthodox Church is in communion with Rome or the Anglicans. 
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on April 06, 2011, 11:09:03 AM

You are trying to change the subject and avoid the truth.   The so-called "American Metropolia" is in communion with nobody in America, whereas the Orthodox in this country are all in communion with each other . . .From what I have read on this thread here, the so-called "American Metropolia" claims the Orthodox who sustain communion with each other are "not True", whereas those who do not have communion with each other are the "True" Church.

How illogical since the "American Metropolia" is in fact in-communion with TOC Churches in Russia, Greece and Bulgaria. As for the other TOC in America, have some patience, we were just given our independence and these relationships take time to nurture.

This logic plainly uses the "invisible Church" branch theory and is exactly the same logic the protestants use to justify their existence.

 ???  Sorry, I'm Orthodox Christian, don't understand this type of thinking.

This so-called so-called "American Metropolia" is just another protestant sect . . . 

The True Orthodox are not syncretic, are not praying with non-Orthodox and the non-Christians, Rome is not our "Sister Church" but is antithetical to Orthodoxy, True Orthodox do not conspire with the State to promote the State's agenda while the "Church" leaders get the State to persecute True Orthodox and all other forms of Sergianism, etc., etc. Can the MP, EP and others make this claim? No! They are the leaders in such unorthodoxy!

Now a group of them has joined OC.net together at almost the same time to come and engage in "missionary activity" here.

A Conspiracy huh? Of the 3 of us one has been in this forum since June 07, 2004, another just a couple days ago and myself since March 09, 2008.  

Same old same old.

Sadly yes, same old same from the ecumenically compromised.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: J Michael on April 06, 2011, 11:09:54 AM
Thanks for your reply!  Some more questions, if you don't mind, in response to your reply.

1.  So, at a rough guess, maybe 10,000 people out of the 200-300 million considered "Orthodox"?

Well, no, not at all. This has a ripple effect. I would say it directly affects a few thousand people, and indirectly affects many more thousands. 200-300 million? Really? I assume you are including Russia's official numbers of 100-150 million, even though the truth is probably less than 20% of that, with only 1% of the population actually practicing? Not realizing that the government statistics inadvertently include True Orthodox in their interviews, who have hundreds of parishes throughout Russia?

Quote
2. Who and where are these "Sister Churches"?  What makes them "sisters"?

There are True Orthodox Synods with whom we are in communion in Greece, Bulgaria, Ukraine, and Russia. This is an increasingly common development after the the ROCOR-MP union period (2000-2007). As much of True Orthodoxy has been historically splintered, this is a natural development in light of increased communications, thanks to better and freer travel, the Internet, et cetera.

Quote
3. Are you saying that the WR Antiochians are neither properly Western and/or Orthodox?

I think their hearts are oftentimes in the in the right place. But they are still using a heterodox rite, usually have not been sufficiently catechized into Orthodoxy and they often have mass receptions. But to the literal answer to the question, I'd say "yes", they are often using incorrect forms foregin to Orthodoxy and their confession of faith has too many holdovers from their previous confession.

Quote
4. What does a "Right-Believing" bishop believe that makes him "right-believing" and others wrong-believing?

They adhere obediently to the principles of the Faith once delivered to the Saints and do not use their power to excuse themselves from doing so.

Quote
  Are the only "right-believing" bishops those within what you refer to as True Orthodoxy?


Yes, but I do not limit True Orthodoxy to our four sister-jurisdictions. I believe all jurisdictions who have preserved the faith, which have broken communion with the world-Orthodox historically in the 20th century and refuse to commune with them until they repent of their heresies, are Orthodox. This numbers in the millions of people, literally thousands of parishes, and numbers about 125-150 Bishops.

So much for a tiny fragment.

Quote
Are ROCOR bishops right- or wrong-believing?

Those Bishops of the ROCOR who refused to go with the union and maintained a proper confession of faith are right-believing. Those who have joined with the MP, their actions speak for themselves, but I believe there are only six or so Bishops left who actually *united* with Moscow, the rest having been made after the union, thus being MP bishops.

Quote
Are the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate right- or wrong-believing? 

I believe the vast majority of the Moscow Patriarchate bishops are nothing more than well-paid civil servants, who are employees of the atheist state. At times committed atheists were "made" Bishops in the MP. There is no apostolic succession there, and any that one had before they joined them is forfeited.

Quote
5. What's the difference between Orthodox, True Orthodox, and Traditional Orthodox?

Well, if you ask me, there isn't any: they are all the same. But for the sake of clarification, I use the terminology as follows I consider True Orthodox to be part of the wider subset of Traditional Orthodox (which includes people who accept and reject the title "True Orthodox", such as folks in the Synod in Resistance) and Traditional Orthodox in the wider subset of "Orthodox" (which includes anyone who calls himself Orthodox, such as the Antiochians). As I personally see little real difference between people who adhere to traditional and true Orthodoxy, and I don't consider World Orthodox as fully Orthodox, I use all three terms interchangeably-- I make the distinction for the convenience of those outside True Orthodoxy, not those within.

Quote
6. Are you saying or implying that out of say roughly 200-300 million "Orthodox" in the world, only a few thousand (10,000-20,000?) are *really* Orthodox and the rest of us are misled apostates?  Have you ever entertained the possibility that it just might be the other way 'round?

Having lived in Russia, and been in a few jurisdictions, I'd say that out of perhaps 70-100 million "Orthodox" in the world, there are two million, maybe 3 million, True Orthodox in various jurisdictions. So the answer to your first question is "yes". Viritually anyone in the world looking for True Orthodoxy can find it. God will have mercy on the few others not so fortunate. As for World Orthodoxy, it is our task to bring you back to the fullness of the Orthodox faith, bring you back to sanity. What you choose to do with that knowledge, however, is up to you. My experience with World Orthodoxy showed me enough that there is something deeply deficient there, even in the most perfectly celebrated of liturgies; something gutted out of it.

But if you want to believe True Orthodoxy is a couple of thousand people in a cave, you are free to do that too. You'd be wrong, just as you are wrong about your other numbers.

The faith is not determined by numbers. "Groupthink" can never trump the eternal truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and His Holy Church, whose teaching has been the same "everywhere and at all times".

Well....it seems things have moved on a bit since I was last here  ;D.

But, it seems like your answers generate even more questions 8).

So....
1.  What is "a few thousand"?

2.  On what basis do you say there are 70-100 million Orthodox instead of, say, 150-300 million?

3.  Who *are* these "sister churches"?  Can you be more specific, please?

4.  Re: WR Antiochians and ROCOR...Is not their confession of faith the Nicene Creed?  If not, what is it, and precisely how is it different from *your* confession of faith?  This is from the website of St. John the Baptist WR Antiochian Church in Maryland:

The Nicene – Constantinopolitan Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, True God of True God, Begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made:

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;

And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;

And ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father;

And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets;

And I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

I look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the Life of the age to come. Amen.

and:
Traditional English Version of Apostles’ Creed

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.  AMEN.

 

Latin Text (ca. A.D. 700)

Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem; Creatorem coeli et terrae.

Et in Jesum Christum, Filium ejus unicum, Dominum nostrum; qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria virgine; passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus; descendit ad inferna; tertia die resurrexit a mortuis; ascendit ad coelos; sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis; inde venturus (est) judicare vivos et mortuos.

Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam ecclesiam catholicam; sanctorum communionem; remissionem peccatorum; carnis resurrectionem; vitam oeternam. Amen.


5. Are you saying that our (ROCOR, Antiochian, OCA, GOA, etc.) bishops do *not* "adhere obediently to the principles of the Faith once delivered to the Saints and do not use their power to excuse themselves from doing so."?  If so, how are they not?

6.  What are the "heterodox" principles or beliefs you keep referring to?  Can you specify, please?

7.  Please define "apostolic succession", especially with regards to those bishops you have referred to as athiests.

I guess that's probably enough for one post  ;).
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 06, 2011, 11:10:10 AM
Aside from quoting protestant sources to "prove" a point (but of course!) , this person purposely skipped the all-important fact that NOBODY in the Orthodox Church is in communion with Rome or the Anglicans. 

Those were statements from allegedly Orthodox hierarchs.

The fact that the Protestant websites actually hang up these things as a badge, making your churches accountable for your words, is not my problem. But because I recognize ACTUAL ORTHODOX people in other jurisdictions with no communion with me, We're the Protestants.

Give me a break. This is a hypocritical line of argument you are using, which is why you have to keep up the mantra "they're Protestants... we're Orthodox... Soviet MP good... yeah".

You haven't addressed a thing I've said because YOU CAN'T.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ROCORthodox on April 06, 2011, 11:30:56 AM
Aside from quoting protestant sources to "prove" a point (but of course!) , this person purposely skipped the all-important fact that NOBODY in the Orthodox Church is in communion with Rome or the Anglicans. 

Those were statements from allegedly Orthodox hierarchs.

The fact that the Protestant websites actually hang up these things as a badge, making your churches accountable for your words, is not my problem. But because I recognize ACTUAL ORTHODOX people in other jurisdictions with no communion with me, We're the Protestants.

Give me a break. This is a hypocritical line of argument you are using, which is why you have to keep up the mantra "they're Protestants... we're Orthodox... Soviet MP good... yeah".

You haven't addressed a thing I've said because YOU CAN'T.

You come here using protestant sources as "truth" to justify your position when the plain and simple fact is the Orthodox Church has no communion with Rome or the Anglicans.  This undisputed FACT addresses everything you say and the sharp Truth of it guts your whole protestant line of reasoning.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 06, 2011, 11:52:43 AM
You come here using protestant sources as "truth" to justify your position when the plain and simple fact is the Orthodox Church has no communion with Rome or the Anglicans.  This undisputed FACT addresses everything you say and the sharp Truth of it guts your whole protestant line of reasoning.

There you go again. It seems you don't understand that both those statements were issued by hierarchs of World Orthodoxy. You seem to want to continue to pretend they are Protestant in origin.

Were you actually *in* ROCOR before 2000? Because no person who's been in ROCOR for a long time would even question the authenticity of the statements I am quoting. They'd use another line of argument altogether, but this "Protestant" name calling tells me your experience with Orthodox Traditionalists is limited, meaning that your time in ROCOR probably is as well.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 06, 2011, 12:15:23 PM
Thanks for the questions.

So....
1.  What is "a few thousand"?


Honestly, our jurisdiction is fairly small to begin with. We don't have any official numbers, but the Autonomous Metropolia of Western Europe and the Americas (now two Metropolias) before the confusion as a whole probably only has about 10-15 thousand people.

Quote
2.  On what basis do you say there are 70-100 million Orthodox instead of, say, 150-300 million?

The official Orthodox hierarchies have worked with inflated numbers for a very long time. Let's take Russia as an example. Indeed, one estimate says there are 150 million Orthodox in Russia; unfortunately this would mean that there are more Orthodox than people in Russia (Russia's population is 138 million according to the CIA world factbook.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html#People

If we look at the numbers and apply a 15% Orthodox population (which is still not a conservative estimate) that's only about 20 million people.

The numbers don't add up. Applying this across the board (as Russia is usually considered to be 1/3-1/4 of the population of Orthodoxy worldwide) we can see that the "300 million" is grossly inflated.

Quote
3.  Who *are* these "sister churches"?  Can you be more specific, please?

Our Sister Churches are listed here. This still includes Milan before the schism. The English in it is very poor however; it translates "Bishops" as "Archpriests" in English.
http://metropolsynodgoc.blogspot.com/p/ecclcommunion.html

Quote
4.  Re: WR Antiochians and ROCOR...Is not their confession of faith the Nicene Creed?  If not, what is it, and precisely how is it different from *your* confession of faith?  This is from the website of St. John the Baptist WR Antiochian Church in Maryland:

Nice touch with the Latin; the Nicene Creed in Latin is fine too if you strike the word "filioque" from it.

The creed is the same for all of us. This is correct. However, we should not take a minimalist approach. The creed is an exposition of the main dogmas of our faith, but it can be held to by heretics. When we believe in "One, Holy, Apostolic Church", we believe in the Councils of that Church, and the teachings expounded therein. The creed, for example, says nothing about the Holy Icons. That doesn't mean that we can "skip them".

Quote
5. Are you saying that our (ROCOR, Antiochian, OCA, GOA, etc.) bishops do *not* "adhere obediently to the principles of the Faith once delivered to the Saints and do not use their power to excuse themselves from doing so."?  If so, how are they not?

That's a very good question. Unfortunately, there just isn't enough space to write about the abandonment of the faith on the part of the official hierarchy. I would suggest a few good books:

1) The Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement, Fr George Macris
2) New Zion in Babylon, Vladimir Moss
3) The Struggle Against Ecumenism, HOCNA
4) Russia's Catacomb Saints, I.M. Andreyev
5) Is the Grace of God Present in the Soviet Church? same author

That's a start.

Now, the ROCOR is unique in that she "stood apart" from so much of these disasters-- until the period of union began to "shake out" those who were faithful to Her original teaching. Sadly, that led to splintering among the traditionalists until the 2007 union with the MP.

Now the Orthodox traditionalists are just trying to pick up the pieces.

Quote
6.  What are the "heterodox" principles or beliefs you keep referring to?  Can you specify, please?

Can you point to a specific context? I'd be glad to answer, but as you can see, a lot's been tossed around....

Quote
7.  Please define "apostolic succession", especially with regards to those bishops you have referred to as athiests.

The Orthodox teaching of Apostolic Succession is the teaching that the Bishops hold the line of succession to the Apostles in terms of the Grace of the Church being passed down from the Apostles to the Bishops of the present day. A good definition is right on OrthodoxWiki: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostolic_succession

What I was referring to, specifically, is that heterodox, nor atheists, cannot be granted the grace of the Apostles, because they are not Orthodox (Apostolic Succession, unlike the Roman teaching, is not mechanical: it does not confer the grace onto someone incapable of receiving it.) During the Soviet period, the "Bishops" ordained at the behest of the Soviet government were sometimes not Orthodox, and in some cases did not believe in God.

I usually use the example of vesting Jehovah's Witnesses. You can vest one, "ordain" him, and he can "ordain" whomever he wishes, but the grace of the Church is not being passed down. This is, effectively, what happened with the MP; apostates continued ordaining apostates, and after the fall of the Soviet Union, sometimes good and well-meaning people with nominal Orthodox faith were made "Bishops". But because their ordainers were themselves defective, they can't hold the grace of the episcopate.

I hope that helps.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: podkarpatska on April 06, 2011, 12:25:22 PM
I don't doubt the sincerity or faith of those of you who are part of the Milan Synod. I just don't think that we will ever agree with you as to each other's definitions and beliefs. Let's just leave it at agreeing to disagree and let us all continue along our Lenten journey to Pascha being at peace in our own hearts.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: J Michael on April 06, 2011, 12:32:08 PM
Thanks for the questions.

So....
1.  What is "a few thousand"?


Honestly, our jurisdiction is fairly small to begin with. We don't have any official numbers, but the Autonomous Metropolia of Western Europe and the Americas (now two Metropolias) before the confusion as a whole probably only has about 10-15 thousand people.

Quote
2.  On what basis do you say there are 70-100 million Orthodox instead of, say, 150-300 million?

The official Orthodox hierarchies have worked with inflated numbers for a very long time. Let's take Russia as an example. Indeed, one estimate says there are 150 million Orthodox in Russia; unfortunately this would mean that there are more Orthodox than people in Russia (Russia's population is 138 million according to the CIA world factbook.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html#People

If we look at the numbers and apply a 15% Orthodox population (which is still not a conservative estimate) that's only about 20 million people.

The numbers don't add up. Applying this across the board (as Russia is usually considered to be 1/3-1/4 of the population of Orthodoxy worldwide) we can see that the "300 million" is grossly inflated.

Quote
3.  Who *are* these "sister churches"?  Can you be more specific, please?

Our Sister Churches are listed here. This still includes Milan before the schism. The English in it is very poor however; it translates "Bishops" as "Archpriests" in English.
http://metropolsynodgoc.blogspot.com/p/ecclcommunion.html

Quote
4.  Re: WR Antiochians and ROCOR...Is not their confession of faith the Nicene Creed?  If not, what is it, and precisely how is it different from *your* confession of faith?  This is from the website of St. John the Baptist WR Antiochian Church in Maryland:

Nice touch with the Latin; the Nicene Creed in Latin is fine too if you strike the word "filioque" from it.

The creed is the same for all of us. This is correct. However, we should not take a minimalist approach. The creed is an exposition of the main dogmas of our faith, but it can be held to by heretics. When we believe in "One, Holy, Apostolic Church", we believe in the Councils of that Church, and the teachings expounded therein. The creed, for example, says nothing about the Holy Icons. That doesn't mean that we can "skip them".

Quote
5. Are you saying that our (ROCOR, Antiochian, OCA, GOA, etc.) bishops do *not* "adhere obediently to the principles of the Faith once delivered to the Saints and do not use their power to excuse themselves from doing so."?  If so, how are they not?

That's a very good question. Unfortunately, there just isn't enough space to write about the abandonment of the faith on the part of the official hierarchy. I would suggest a few good books:

1) The Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement, Fr George Macris
2) New Zion in Babylon, Vladimir Moss
3) The Struggle Against Ecumenism, HOCNA
4) Russia's Catacomb Saints, I.M. Andreyev
5) Is the Grace of God Present in the Soviet Church? same author

That's a start.

Now, the ROCOR is unique in that she "stood apart" from so much of these disasters-- until the period of union began to "shake out" those who were faithful to Her original teaching. Sadly, that led to splintering among the traditionalists until the 2007 union with the MP.

Now the Orthodox traditionalists are just trying to pick up the pieces.

Quote
6.  What are the "heterodox" principles or beliefs you keep referring to?  Can you specify, please?

Can you point to a specific context? I'd be glad to answer, but as you can see, a lot's been tossed around....

Quote
7.  Please define "apostolic succession", especially with regards to those bishops you have referred to as athiests.

The Orthodox teaching of Apostolic Succession is the teaching that the Bishops hold the line of succession to the Apostles in terms of the Grace of the Church being passed down from the Apostles to the Bishops of the present day. A good definition is right on OrthodoxWiki: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostolic_succession

What I was referring to, specifically, is that heterodox, nor atheists, cannot be granted the grace of the Apostles, because they are not Orthodox (Apostolic Succession, unlike the Roman teaching, is not mechanical: it does not confer the grace onto someone incapable of receiving it.) During the Soviet period, the "Bishops" ordained at the behest of the Soviet government were sometimes not Orthodox, and in some cases did not believe in God.

I usually use the example of vesting Jehovah's Witnesses. You can vest one, "ordain" him, and he can "ordain" whomever he wishes, but the grace of the Church is not being passed down. This is, effectively, what happened with the MP; apostates continued ordaining apostates, and after the fall of the Soviet Union, sometimes good and well-meaning people with nominal Orthodox faith were made "Bishops". But because their ordainers were themselves defective, they can't hold the grace of the episcopate.

I hope that helps.

Yes, it does help some.  Thanks for the references.  I'll add them to my ever-growing list of books to be read (if only had the *time*  ;D).

You, yourself, have just used the term "heterodox" in this post (2nd t last paragraph).  So, what do you mean by it in *that* context?  You and others have used it a number of times before without really explaining it in any context.  So........?

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FormerReformer on April 06, 2011, 12:43:10 PM

What I was referring to, specifically, is that heterodox, nor atheists, cannot be granted the grace of the Apostles, because they are not Orthodox (Apostolic Succession, unlike the Roman teaching, is not mechanical: it does not confer the grace onto someone incapable of receiving it.) During the Soviet period, the "Bishops" ordained at the behest of the Soviet government were sometimes not Orthodox, and in some cases did not believe in God.

I usually use the example of vesting Jehovah's Witnesses. You can vest one, "ordain" him, and he can "ordain" whomever he wishes, but the grace of the Church is not being passed down. This is, effectively, what happened with the MP; apostates continued ordaining apostates, and after the fall of the Soviet Union, sometimes good and well-meaning people with nominal Orthodox faith were made "Bishops". But because their ordainers were themselves defective, they can't hold the grace of the episcopate.

I hope that helps.

I'm sorry, but the above statement regarding the years of Communist persecution in the Russian Church sounds suspiciously like Donatism.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 06, 2011, 12:44:24 PM
Yes, it does help some.  Thanks for the references.  I'll add them to my ever-growing list of books to be read (if only had the *time*  ;D).

You, yourself, have just used the term "heterodox" in this post (2nd t last paragraph).  So, what do you mean by it in *that* context?  You and others have used it a number of times before without really explaining it in any context.  So........?

Oh! I thought you meant how something I had referred to as "heterodox" was heterodox, not heterodoxy itself. "Heterodox" is commonly interpreted as "not Orthodox", and that is precisely how I meant it.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 06, 2011, 12:46:49 PM
I'm sorry, but the above statement regarding the years of Communist persecution in the Russian Church sounds suspiciously like Donatism.

Can you please explain how it sounds like Donatism? I can't possibly see how. I'd be glad to address it, if you could help point out the similarity.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FormerReformer on April 06, 2011, 12:53:36 PM
I'm sorry, but the above statement regarding the years of Communist persecution in the Russian Church sounds suspiciously like Donatism.

Can you please explain how it sounds like Donatism? I can't possibly see how. I'd be glad to address it, if you could help point out the similarity.

First a source:http://orthodoxwiki.org/Donatism (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Donatism)

And an excerpt: 
Quote
The issue came to a head in 311, Caecilian was consecrated bishop of Carthage. His consecration was disputed by many Carthaginians because one of the three consecrating bishops, Felix, bishop of Aptunga, had surrendered copies of the Scriptures to Roman persecutors and was considered a traditor. A subsequent council of some seventy “purist” bishops formalized the dispute and declared Caecilian’s consecration invalid. They then elected as bishop Majorinus, who had denounced “Roman collaborators” and refused to reconcile clergy who had lapsed.

Your claim that the Russian Church is completely invalid because of a "false" bishop or two during a seventy year period seems to be right along the same lines.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: J Michael on April 06, 2011, 12:55:55 PM
Yes, it does help some.  Thanks for the references.  I'll add them to my ever-growing list of books to be read (if only had the *time*  ;D).

You, yourself, have just used the term "heterodox" in this post (2nd t last paragraph).  So, what do you mean by it in *that* context?  You and others have used it a number of times before without really explaining it in any context.  So........?

Oh! I thought you meant how something I had referred to as "heterodox" was heterodox, not heterodoxy itself. "Heterodox" is commonly interpreted as "not Orthodox", and that is precisely how I meant it.

Oy Vey!!!  Now *this* is getting ridiculous!  What, precisely is not "Orthodox" about those whom you refer to as not being True or Traditional Orthodox?  And, please, don't say that they are "heterodox"  ;D!
I may not be the brightest of bulbs, but I do know that the word "heterodox" means:
het·er·o·dox
   /ˈhɛtərəˌdɒks/ Show Spelled[het-er-uh-doks] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
not in accordance with established or accepted doctrines or opinions, especially in theology; unorthodox.
2.
holding unorthodox doctrines or opinions.
(from dictionary.com)
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 06, 2011, 01:01:10 PM

First a source:http://orthodoxwiki.org/Donatism (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Donatism)

And an excerpt: 
Quote
The issue came to a head in 311, Caecilian was consecrated bishop of Carthage. His consecration was disputed by many Carthaginians because one of the three consecrating bishops, Felix, bishop of Aptunga, had surrendered copies of the Scriptures to Roman persecutors and was considered a traditor. A subsequent council of some seventy “purist” bishops formalized the dispute and declared Caecilian’s consecration invalid. They then elected as bishop Majorinus, who had denounced “Roman collaborators” and refused to reconcile clergy who had lapsed.

Your claim that the Russian Church is completely invalid because of a "false" bishop or two during a seventy year period seems to be right along the same lines.

Thank you.

First, your source begins with the following: "That was how should those who lapsed during the persecutions be accepted back into the Church, especially lapsed clergy. Doctrine was not involved."

I would argue that doctrine was heavily involved, because of the heresy of Sergianism. However, you seem to be missing my point. The Bishops, according to the canons, can never be made at the behest of the government, and this is in regards to Christian Emperors. How much more so would that be true for an atheist government? Nor are we even touching the fact that NON-ORTHODOX were "made Bishops" and participated in consecrations! The two are hardly comparable except that both involve Bishops protesting elections.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ROCORthodox on April 06, 2011, 01:08:45 PM
You come here using protestant sources as "truth" to justify your position when the plain and simple fact is the Orthodox Church has no communion with Rome or the Anglicans.  This undisputed FACT addresses everything you say and the sharp Truth of it guts your whole protestant line of reasoning.

There you go again. It seems you don't understand that both those statements were issued by hierarchs of World Orthodoxy. You seem to want to continue to pretend they are Protestant in origin.

Were you actually *in* ROCOR before 2000? Because no person who's been in ROCOR for a long time would even question the authenticity of the statements I am quoting. They'd use another line of argument altogether, but this "Protestant" name calling tells me your experience with Orthodox Traditionalists is limited, meaning that your time in ROCOR probably is as well.

It does not matter from which source you pull from, the key point which deflates your argument is that the Orthodox Church has no communion with Rome.   No matter how much smoke and mirrors you set up to avoid this fact, it is the only point I need to address to debunk your assertions.

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 06, 2011, 01:13:49 PM
It does not matter from which source you pull from, the key point which deflates your argument is that the Orthodox Church has no communion with Rome.   No matter how much smoke and mirrors you set up to avoid this fact, it is the only point I need to address to debunk your assertions.

Well, if that's all you have left, maybe you can explain the yearly joint celebrations in which both Catholics and Orthodox receive from one chalice? Maybe you can explain why when the Pope visits he is commemorated by Patriarchal deacons as the First Bishop of the Church? Maybe you can explain why "Orthodox" Bishops receive from a Roman Chalice and are not punished by the Synod and even defended by their people?! You can say there's no communion with Rome, but there's plenty to go around at the highest levels. Some of it's on video.

Back when ROCOR was in communion with the SiR, they used to have lots of videos showing stuff like this. But, since I am pretty sure you're new to ROCOR, you probably didn't know that.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 06, 2011, 01:16:10 PM
Oy Vey!!!  Now *this* is getting ridiculous!  What, precisely is not "Orthodox" about those whom you refer to as not being True or Traditional Orthodox?  And, please, don't say that they are "heterodox"  ;D!
I may not be the brightest of bulbs, but I do know that the word "heterodox" means:
het·er·o·dox

No, I mean they are actually not Orthodox, some other religion, or atheist, but are ordained at the behest of the KGB anyway. Maybe I can explain with an example?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1470259/posts
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FrAugustineFetter on April 06, 2011, 01:27:01 PM
If I might add my two cents in here.  There seems to be a false dichotomy created in the World Orthodox mind, and though I hate to use this much abused term, I will say that this is "Western Captivity."
You are either forced into a neo-papist patriarchal church view (that is, each of the patriarchs are equivalent to the pope), and thus papism, and if you don't accept that you are protestants.  Reminds me of the Papists apologists who accuse the Eastern Orthodox of being protestant because they have no central earthly figure giving orders, etc.
Perhaps one should read Socrates the Byzantine historian, who goes over the whole Arian controversy in the 4th century, or one should meantion how describe 2, then 3, bishops in Antioch, all mutually refusing to accept each other, while none of them accepted the Arian Patriarch.  The Eustathians refused to accept St. Meletius because he had been consecrated by Bishops professing the Creed of Antioch, which was the same as Nicea, but, refused to add 'homousius', and they declared him to be without grace.  Or, who Bishop Luciferus from Sicily came a consecrated another Orthodox bishop and it produced even more confusion.  Or about, how, many Orthodox bishops never trusted other ones, or had communion, because no one was sure who was a secret Arian, or Sabellian, (as we later learned was teh charge against St. Athansius, or his friend Marcellus of Ancyra), and that there was never the slightest charge that these bishops and clergy and laity in a horrific situation were denying the believei n "One Catholic Church".  Extradordinary times produce extraordinary problems.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: J Michael on April 06, 2011, 01:28:05 PM
Oy Vey!!!  Now *this* is getting ridiculous!  What, precisely is not "Orthodox" about those whom you refer to as not being True or Traditional Orthodox?  And, please, don't say that they are "heterodox"  ;D!
I may not be the brightest of bulbs, but I do know that the word "heterodox" means:
het·er·o·dox

No, I mean they are actually not Orthodox, some other religion, or atheist, but are ordained at the behest of the KGB anyway. Maybe I can explain with an example?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1470259/posts

Let me try to be more specific, as I'm clearly not getting across what I'm trying to.  Do you consider members, including bishops of course, of the OCA, ROCOR, AOCA, ACROD, GOA, etc. to be "heterodox"?  If so, can you please explain precisely how so in a manner that does not just say that they are not True Orthodox or Traditional Orthodox?

I'm beginning to think I've fallen down the proverbial rabbit hole here  ;D!  Yikes! 

(You're not a lawyer by profession, are you?  ::))
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FormerReformer on April 06, 2011, 01:37:14 PM

First a source:http://orthodoxwiki.org/Donatism (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Donatism)

And an excerpt: 
Quote
The issue came to a head in 311, Caecilian was consecrated bishop of Carthage. His consecration was disputed by many Carthaginians because one of the three consecrating bishops, Felix, bishop of Aptunga, had surrendered copies of the Scriptures to Roman persecutors and was considered a traditor. A subsequent council of some seventy “purist” bishops formalized the dispute and declared Caecilian’s consecration invalid. They then elected as bishop Majorinus, who had denounced “Roman collaborators” and refused to reconcile clergy who had lapsed.

Your claim that the Russian Church is completely invalid because of a "false" bishop or two during a seventy year period seems to be right along the same lines.

Thank you.

First, your source begins with the following: "That was how should those who lapsed during the persecutions be accepted back into the Church, especially lapsed clergy. Doctrine was not involved."

I would argue that doctrine was heavily involved, because of the heresy of Sergianism. However, you seem to be missing my point. The Bishops, according to the canons, can never be made at the behest of the government, and this is in regards to Christian Emperors. How much more so would that be true for an atheist government? Nor are we even touching the fact that NON-ORTHODOX were "made Bishops" and participated in consecrations! The two are hardly comparable except that both involve Bishops protesting elections.

You bring up the canons.  Yet how many times have the canons not been followed exactly to the letter?  The canons state a priest must be 30 years of age, how many times has a younger man been privileged to serve in this position?  

Going based off your above statement, you might as well say that Constantinople has had invalid succession since the rise of the Ottoman Empire because the Patriarchs served at the whim of the Ottoman Emperor, or before that even when Emperors in defiance of the canon replaced the Patriarch.

Further, I see no substantiations of any allegations of "Sergianism" within the Russian Church.  Patriarch Sergius must have been an evil and vile man indeed to have completely poisoned a Church that existed for a thousand years in just eight short months.

Indeed, it seems the situation is exactly that of the Donatist schism.  I see no heresy within the Russian Church of the Communist era, just a bishop or two who "surrendered the copies of the holy books" (or the names of anti-government collaborators) to the Communist persecutors.  That some didn't maintain their faith as steadfastly as the martyrs is a given: it is so in any period of martyrdom.  
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: J Michael on April 06, 2011, 01:58:58 PM
You know, for all of our to-ing and fro-ing here; for all the debate about who is who and what is what and what is who; for all the squabbling about who is "more" Orthodox than whom, who is "really" Orthodox and who isn't, and on and on ad nauseum, I'm going to try to cut through the crap (am I allowed to say that here?) and boil this down to the simplest thing I can, being myself somewhat of a simpleton  ;).

So...here goes: At the Last Judgment, will we be held accountable for which church we attended?  Will we be held accountable for which jurisdiction we belonged to?  Will we be held accountable as to whether we were Orthodox, heterodox, True Orthodox, False Orthodox, or any other -dox?  Or.....will we be held accountable for "every idle word..."; for whether we have chosen Him instead of the other; for whether or not we have repented of our sins; and for whether or not we have loved our enemy, loved our neighbor, etc., etc., etc.?  What is it that is really of ultimate importance?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 06, 2011, 02:09:19 PM
You bring up the canons.  Yet how many times have the canons not been followed exactly to the letter?  The canons state a priest must be 30 years of age, how many times has a younger man been privileged to serve in this position?  

Neither here nor there. There is a difference between a prohibition and a guideline. You can, as a Bishop, decide whether someone needs to wait to the age of 30 to ordain him a priest; you can't ignore a direct prohibition to, for example, pray with heretics.

Quote
Going based off your above statement, you might as well say that Constantinople has had invalid succession since the rise of the Ottoman Empire because the Patriarchs served at the whim of the Ottoman Emperor, or before that even when Emperors in defiance of the canon replaced the Patriarch.

This is a common comparison made by those defending Sergianism.

Quote
Further, I see no substantiations of any allegations of "Sergianism" within the Russian Church.  Patriarch Sergius must have been an evil and vile man indeed to have completely poisoned a Church that existed for a thousand years in just eight short months.

No need to poison it at all, simply to ignore it. You are aware that the entire Moscow Patriarchate received its origins from 19 Bishops working with Stalin, six of whom were renovationists?

Shumilo continues: “The so-called ‘hierarchical council’… took place on September 8, 1943. In all 19 hierarchs took part in it, six of whom were former renovationists who had been hastily consecrated not long before the ‘council’, and also several loyal bishops who were specially freed from prison and sent to Moscow in planes. At the given assembly there were no bishops from the occupied territories, nor from the emigration, or, still more, those who did not agree with Sergius and his ecclesiastical politics, who continued to languish in
Soviet concentration camps. As the patriarchal historian D. Pospelovsky notes: ‘… At that time there were at least some tens of bishops in exile and the camps… Some of the imprisoned bishops refused to recognize the ecclesiastical politics of Sergius after 1927 as the condition of their liberation. At that time the Catacomb Church was still very active.’” (Moss, New Zion in Babylon, part IV, p.37)

So 1/3 of the Bishops that formed what became the MP were in fact renovationists. ALL of them operated under orders from Stalin. And ALL of the MP's Bishops come from these same 19 men.

Quote
Indeed, it seems the situation is exactly that of the Donatist schism.  I see no heresy within the Russian Church of the Communist era, just a bishop or two who "surrendered the copies of the holy books" (or the names of anti-government collaborators) to the Communist persecutors.  That some didn't maintain their faith as steadfastly as the martyrs is a given: it is so in any period of martyrdom.  

"Surrendering copies of the Holy Books" and effectively sentencing martyrs to their deaths are very different things, and the fact that you can blithely make that comparison is extremely disturbing.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 06, 2011, 02:13:41 PM
Let me try to be more specific, as I'm clearly not getting across what I'm trying to.  Do you consider members, including bishops of course, of the OCA, ROCOR, AOCA, ACROD, GOA, etc. to be "heterodox"?  If so, can you please explain precisely how so in a manner that does not just say that they are not True Orthodox or Traditional Orthodox?

I'm beginning to think I've fallen down the proverbial rabbit hole here  ;D!  Yikes!  

I believe I answered that question with a reference to a series of books.

Quote
Quote
5. Are you saying that our (ROCOR, Antiochian, OCA, GOA, etc.) bishops do *not* "adhere obediently to the principles of the Faith once delivered to the Saints and do not use their power to excuse themselves from doing so."?  If so, how are they not?

That's a very good question. Unfortunately, there just isn't enough space to write about the abandonment of the faith on the part of the official hierarchy. I would suggest a few good books....
-----

You are asking me to point to a specific item, but the truth is that one must look at the cohesive whole of the behaviors of official Orthodoxy to demonstrate the inconsistency of their doctrinal teaching as opposed to the traditional Orthodox teaching. I am not going to get into a game of "well, this hierarch did this, but *this* hierarch did that." That's a waste of time.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ROCORthodox on April 06, 2011, 02:14:29 PM
It does not matter from which source you pull from, the key point which deflates your argument is that the Orthodox Church has no communion with Rome.   No matter how much smoke and mirrors you set up to avoid this fact, it is the only point I need to address to debunk your assertions.

Well, if that's all you have left, maybe you can explain the yearly joint celebrations in which both Catholics and Orthodox receive from one chalice? Maybe you can explain why when the Pope visits he is commemorated by Patriarchal deacons as the First Bishop of the Church? Maybe you can explain why "Orthodox" Bishops receive from a Roman Chalice and are not punished by the Synod and even defended by their people?! You can say there's no communion with Rome, but there's plenty to go around at the highest levels. Some of it's on video.

Back when ROCOR was in communion with the SiR, they used to have lots of videos showing stuff like this. But, since I am pretty sure you're new to ROCOR, you probably didn't know that.

The only thing you have given so far are links to protestant blogs and volumes of claims.   Go ahead and post for us the videos of "Orthodox" bishops receiving communion with Rome.  If you say these are yearly events - and there used to be lots of videos showing this stuff like this - then you should have no problem posting videos for us to see.


Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: J Michael on April 06, 2011, 02:21:19 PM
Let me try to be more specific, as I'm clearly not getting across what I'm trying to.  Do you consider members, including bishops of course, of the OCA, ROCOR, AOCA, ACROD, GOA, etc. to be "heterodox"?  If so, can you please explain precisely how so in a manner that does not just say that they are not True Orthodox or Traditional Orthodox?

I'm beginning to think I've fallen down the proverbial rabbit hole here  ;D!  Yikes!  

I believe I answered that question with a reference to a series of books.

Quote
Quote
5. Are you saying that our (ROCOR, Antiochian, OCA, GOA, etc.) bishops do *not* "adhere obediently to the principles of the Faith once delivered to the Saints and do not use their power to excuse themselves from doing so."?  If so, how are they not?

That's a very good question. Unfortunately, there just isn't enough space to write about the abandonment of the faith on the part of the official hierarchy. I would suggest a few good books....
-----

You are asking me to point to a specific item, but the truth is that one must look at the cohesive whole of the behaviors of official Orthodoxy to demonstrate the inconsistency of their doctrinal teaching as opposed to the traditional Orthodox teaching. I am not going to get into a game of "well, this hierarch did this, but *this* hierarch did that." That's a waste of time.

Kinda the answer I expected  :( .  You really *must* be a lawyer  ::) :(.

I'm thinking it's time to move on to a different thread or topic.......
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ROCORthodox on April 06, 2011, 02:22:18 PM
Quote
Quote
Going based off your above statement, you might as well say that Constantinople has had invalid succession since the rise of the Ottoman Empire because the Patriarchs served at the whim of the Ottoman Emperor, or before that even when Emperors in defiance of the canon replaced the Patriarch.

"This is a common comparison made by those defending Sergianism."

Everyone see this?  He just ducked out because he can't answer such a direct fact without contradicting himself in general.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: J Michael on April 06, 2011, 02:25:33 PM
Quote
Quote
Going based off your above statement, you might as well say that Constantinople has had invalid succession since the rise of the Ottoman Empire because the Patriarchs served at the whim of the Ottoman Emperor, or before that even when Emperors in defiance of the canon replaced the Patriarch.

"This is a common comparison made by those defending Sergianism."

Everyone see this?  He just ducked out because he can't answer such a direct fact without contradicting himself in general.

Yup.  I think he's a lawyer  ;D!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FrAugustineFetter on April 06, 2011, 03:04:07 PM
Well, now it's just the True Orthodox versue the World Orthodox, the anti-ecumenist versus the ecumenist, the traditionalist versus the modernist.  What did people expect was going to happen to this thread; these are intractable problems since people come from different understandings.

I hope I answer the questions from the two fellows that asked me the difference between the old Western Orthodox liturgy and the Tridentine mass.  I hope I also clarified, that we were not saying the Eastern Liturgies are bad! We were just saying that the Liturgy celebrated by Sts. Gregory the Great, Leo the Great, Bede, Theodore of Cantebury, Martin the Confessor, Dunstan, etc, can still be used in their essential form.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ROCORthodox on April 06, 2011, 05:56:40 PM
Well, now it's just the True Orthodox versue the World Orthodox, the anti-ecumenist versus the ecumenist, the traditionalist versus the modernist.  What did people expect was going to happen to this thread; these are intractable problems since people come from different understandings.

I hope I answer the questions from the two fellows that asked me the difference between the old Western Orthodox liturgy and the Tridentine mass.  I hope I also clarified, that we were not saying the Eastern Liturgies are bad! We were just saying that the Liturgy celebrated by Sts. Gregory the Great, Leo the Great, Bede, Theodore of Cantebury, Martin the Confessor, Dunstan, etc, can still be used in their essential form.

Your friend claims there is video of Orthodox bishops communing with Latins, which he says happens yearly.  We are waiting for him to post a link to these videos which should be readily available, if his claim is true.   He also ducked out on a major point concerning the captivity of the EP under the Turks which shows the futility of his position concerning the MP.  Stuff like this does not fair well for your claims.

This is not a matter of "different understandings".   It is a matter of you folks making unstable arguments to justify your separate existence from the Church while you claim the Church is not the Church.
You would have us believe that the "real" Church has been smashed to smithereens with barely any communion with each other, yet somehow invisibly united. 
 
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: SolEX01 on April 06, 2011, 06:40:35 PM
Well, now it's just the True Orthodox versue the World Orthodox, the anti-ecumenist versus the ecumenist, the traditionalist versus the modernist.  What did people expect was going to happen to this thread; these are intractable problems since people come from different understandings.

I hope I answer the questions from the two fellows that asked me the difference between the old Western Orthodox liturgy and the Tridentine mass.  I hope I also clarified, that we were not saying the Eastern Liturgies are bad! We were just saying that the Liturgy celebrated by Sts. Gregory the Great, Leo the Great, Bede, Theodore of Cantebury, Martin the Confessor, Dunstan, etc, can still be used in their essential form.

Can't we all just get along?  Except for your jurisdiction, which doesn't want to get along with anyone.   ;) 

Quote
By being reactive, we might reject the problem, give up, or feel inadequate to deal with the problem. If the problem is persistent, we might struggle or exit. As the conflict develops, we perceive it as a threat, and we may blame, attack or withdraw. These behaviors constitute our fear reaction system. I like to call it our self-protective system. The brain systems associated with fear reaction are very, very old, dating back to the earliest vertebrae animals. Although highly adaptive in the uncertain and dangerous environment of 20,000 years ago, the system is largely maladaptive in our modern, complex culture.

source (http://www.mediate.com/articles/noll9.cfm)

So, because people come from different understandings, the problems are intractable?  Some would accuse "World Orthodoxy" of being self-protective and yet, you are also being self-protective.  As another poster already pondered, on the Day of Last Judgment, does it matter whether or not we were a part of "World Orthodoxy" or against it?   ???
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 06, 2011, 06:49:50 PM
Quote
Quote
Going based off your above statement, you might as well say that Constantinople has had invalid succession since the rise of the Ottoman Empire because the Patriarchs served at the whim of the Ottoman Emperor, or before that even when Emperors in defiance of the canon replaced the Patriarch.

"This is a common comparison made by those defending Sergianism."

Everyone see this?  He just ducked out because he can't answer such a direct fact without contradicting himself in general.

Here. Let me correct myself. I think that's a dumb argument, there is no real comparison, and since you know it so well, can you please demonstrate how the two are similar.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 06, 2011, 06:52:51 PM
The only thing you have given so far are links to protestant blogs and volumes of claims.   Go ahead and post for us the videos of "Orthodox" bishops receiving communion with Rome.  If you say these are yearly events - and there used to be lots of videos showing this stuff like this - then you should have no problem posting videos for us to see.

I said three different things. You really want a bunch of videos and pictures?

Really?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 06, 2011, 06:54:41 PM
So, because people come from different understandings, the problems are intractable?  Some would accuse "World Orthodoxy" of being self-protective and yet, you are also being self-protective.  As another poster already pondered, on the Day of Last Judgment, does it matter whether or not we were a part of "World Orthodoxy" or against it?   ???

Does it matter whether we were Orthodox or not? Whether we were Christian or not? Whether we believe in God or not? Why stop at membership in "World Orthodoxy"?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Alpo on April 06, 2011, 06:56:06 PM
I hope I answer the questions from the two fellows that asked me the difference between the old Western Orthodox liturgy and the Tridentine mass.

You did. Thank you for your explanation.  :)

Quote
the Liturgy celebrated by Sts. Gregory the Great, Leo the Great, Bede, Theodore of Cantebury, Martin the Confessor, Dunstan, etc, can still be used in their essential form.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ROCORthodox on April 06, 2011, 07:09:13 PM
"You can say there's no communion with Rome, but there's plenty to go around at the highest levels. Some of it's on video."

 
Again, go ahead and post for us the videos of "Orthodox" bishops receiving communion with Rome.  You say this is a yearly event. You say some of it is on video.  Well, let's see the video.

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ROCORthodox on April 06, 2011, 07:21:35 PM
Quote
Quote
Going based off your above statement, you might as well say that Constantinople has had invalid succession since the rise of the Ottoman Empire because the Patriarchs served at the whim of the Ottoman Emperor, or before that even when Emperors in defiance of the canon replaced the Patriarch.

"This is a common comparison made by those defending Sergianism."

Everyone see this?  He just ducked out because he can't answer such a direct fact without contradicting himself in general.

Here. Let me correct myself. I think that's a dumb argument, there is no real comparison, and since you know it so well, can you please demonstrate how the two are similar.

Not dumb, just an argument you are trying to avoid.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ottoman_rule_and_Eastern_Christianity
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 06, 2011, 07:29:20 PM
Oy Vey!!!  Now *this* is getting ridiculous!  What, precisely is not "Orthodox" about those whom you refer to as not being True or Traditional Orthodox?  And, please, don't say that they are "heterodox"  ;D!
I may not be the brightest of bulbs, but I do know that the word "heterodox" means:
het·er·o·dox

No, I mean they are actually not Orthodox, some other religion, or atheist, but are ordained at the behest of the KGB anyway. Maybe I can explain with an example?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1470259/posts

My brothers, have you missed the point?  The gentlemen writing here as "Suaiden" and "FrAugustineFetter" as well as their bishop in New York John LoBue genuinely believe that the Russian Church is the Satanic Empire.  They have told me, more than once, that I am a priest of Satan as also my Metropolitan Hilarion and if you read the article in the OP you will see it stated officially.  To his eternal credit in heaven the other MAB member writing here with the screen name of "PapaSymeon" disagrees with both his bishop and these two other gentlemen.   
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 06, 2011, 07:33:51 PM
Oy Vey!!!  Now *this* is getting ridiculous!  What, precisely is not "Orthodox" about those whom you refer to as not being True or Traditional Orthodox?  And, please, don't say that they are "heterodox"  ;D!
I may not be the brightest of bulbs, but I do know that the word "heterodox" means:
het·er·o·dox

No, I mean they are actually not Orthodox, some other religion, or atheist, but are ordained at the behest of the KGB anyway. Maybe I can explain with an example?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1470259/posts

Let me try to be more specific, as I'm clearly not getting across what I'm trying to.  Do you consider members, including bishops of course, of the OCA, ROCOR, AOCA, ACROD, GOA, etc. to be "heterodox"?  If so, can you please explain precisely how so in a manner that does not just say that they are not True Orthodox or Traditional Orthodox?

I'm beginning to think I've fallen down the proverbial rabbit hole here  ;D!  Yikes! 

(You're not a lawyer by profession, are you?  ::))

In the belief system of the people whom you are addressing  and of their NY bishop all the Churches you mention are part of the Satanic Empire.  Their "baptisms" serve only to pollute further and their Eucharist is mushy bread and wine on a spoon.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: SolEX01 on April 06, 2011, 07:43:33 PM
So, because people come from different understandings, the problems are intractable?  Some would accuse "World Orthodoxy" of being self-protective and yet, you are also being self-protective.  As another poster already pondered, on the Day of Last Judgment, does it matter whether or not we were a part of "World Orthodoxy" or against it?   ???

Does it matter whether we were Orthodox or not? Whether we were Christian or not? Whether we believe in God or not? Why stop at membership in "World Orthodoxy"?

Because, I'm presenting the situation in a light favorable to your jurisdiction.  I mean, being elevated to an Autonomous Metropolia only to be summarily excommunicated - that must really hurt.   :(
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: filipinopilgrim on April 06, 2011, 07:45:14 PM
I was taking a look at the lists of clergy with Milan and I see that Archbishop Luca of Torcello is not on those. Where has he gone?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: J Michael on April 07, 2011, 10:11:27 AM
Oy Vey!!!  Now *this* is getting ridiculous!  What, precisely is not "Orthodox" about those whom you refer to as not being True or Traditional Orthodox?  And, please, don't say that they are "heterodox"  ;D!
I may not be the brightest of bulbs, but I do know that the word "heterodox" means:
het·er·o·dox

No, I mean they are actually not Orthodox, some other religion, or atheist, but are ordained at the behest of the KGB anyway. Maybe I can explain with an example?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1470259/posts

Let me try to be more specific, as I'm clearly not getting across what I'm trying to.  Do you consider members, including bishops of course, of the OCA, ROCOR, AOCA, ACROD, GOA, etc. to be "heterodox"?  If so, can you please explain precisely how so in a manner that does not just say that they are not True Orthodox or Traditional Orthodox?

I'm beginning to think I've fallen down the proverbial rabbit hole here  ;D!  Yikes! 

(You're not a lawyer by profession, are you?  ::))

In the belief system of the people whom you are addressing  and of their NY bishop all the Churches you mention are part of the Satanic Empire.  Their "baptisms" serve only to pollute further and their Eucharist is mushy bread and wine on a spoon.

Gee, and here I thought "we" were the "good guys"  :'( :'( :'(.  Guess I'll have to go and buy a black hat now  ;D.  At least it won't show the "dirt" quite as much  ;D!  I'll just have to be sure to keep it out of reach of my shedding cats  ;).  (Aren't there some folks who think cats are "satanic", too?  Eeeeek!)

Your comment explains much, really, so thanks for that.  What it doesn't explain is, if these folks truly believe that, why are they even talking to "us"?  If it's in the hope of bringing us to some kind of "conversion" or whatever, it certainly doesn't help their cause to be accusatory, evasive, even more evasive, and to provide us with strange, convoluted arguments.  The whole thing really is very sad and divisive.  (I've heard that Satan loves to foment division--but I guess that's "our" fault, eh?)

Just as an aside, the more I read about the Milan Synod and their "sisters", the more the word "cult" or "cult-like" comes to mind.

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FrAugustineFetter on April 07, 2011, 09:15:57 PM
I'm glad I answered the liturgical questions of Alpo and the Finnish fellow.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Rafa999 on April 07, 2011, 09:25:07 PM
I personally believe it is very foolish to take sacraments from excommunicated "True Orthodox" priests. But hey, if you feel your soul is safe receiving the Body of Christ from somebody in communion with at most a willy wonka coloured vest wearing person in a basement, then what can I say. Don't be fooled guys, this is protestantism dressed up with an orthodox coating. How can you be a priest if every single orthodox church is not in communion with you or your patriarch or Archbishop defrocked you ? The apostolic canons clearly forbid wandering priests or bishops. PERIOD.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FrAugustineFetter on April 07, 2011, 09:32:39 PM
Well I'm glad I answered your questions on the liturgical texts.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FrAugustineFetter on April 07, 2011, 10:22:11 PM
Thanks for the rebuke from the Papist who goes to an Heretical Nestorian church.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Rafa999 on April 07, 2011, 10:25:01 PM
LOL! Thanks for the rebuke o vagante priest. If the priesthood is equal in hierarchy to the angels I know where you stand.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FrAugustineFetter on April 07, 2011, 10:27:34 PM
I'm not a priest, never was.  And, no patriarch or whatever deposed us, or defrocked my bishops; unlike yours that were deposed way back by the Ecumenical Councils, and then again anathematized by the Orthodox, especially the Pope of Rome. 
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Rafa999 on April 07, 2011, 10:28:58 PM
I'm not a priest, never was.  And, no patriarch or whatever deposed us, or defrocked my bishops; unlike yours that were deposed way back by the Ecumenical Councils, and then again anathematized by the Orthodox, especially the Pope of Rome.  

Yes whatever. Good luck with your fake Bishop.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FrAugustineFetter on April 07, 2011, 10:33:45 PM
Okay, good luck praying to Nestorius, who is burning in hell with all the heretics.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 07, 2011, 10:34:45 PM
I'm not a priest, never was.  And, no patriarch or whatever deposed us, or defrocked my bishops; unlike yours that were deposed way back by the Ecumenical Councils, and then again anathematized by the Orthodox, especially the Pope of Rome. 

Your Church headquartered in New York has made a public statement over the last few days (see the OP)  that the Orthodox Patriarchs and all the Orthodox clergy are representatives of Satan.   Is there any need of a formal deposition?    Your words show that you cannot distinguish the true Church of Christ from Satan. 
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Rafa999 on April 07, 2011, 10:35:28 PM
Okay, good luck praying to Nestorius, who is burning in hell with all the heretics.

I do pray to him, tonight I will pray that he leads you away from distributing fake communion to innocent babushkas who could be going to a real Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 07, 2011, 10:36:37 PM
I'm not a priest, never was.  And, no patriarch or whatever deposed us, or defrocked my bishops; unlike yours that were deposed way back by the Ecumenical Councils, and then again anathematized by the Orthodox, especially the Pope of Rome. 

Your Church headquartered in New York has made a public statement over the last few days (see the OP)  that the Orthodox Patriarchs and all the Orthodox clergy are representatives of Satan.   Is there any need of a formal deposition?    Your words show that you cannot distinguish the true Church of Christ from Satan. 

Does that mean you think the Nestorians and the Pope are also in the True Church of Christ?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FrAugustineFetter on April 07, 2011, 10:38:15 PM
YOU PRAY TO NESTORIUS THE ARCH-HERETIC! THE MAN ANATHEMATIZED BY THE HOLY ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF EPHESUS!!!!!!!!!! AND ANATHEMATIZED AND CONDEMNED BY ALL THE SAINTS AND HOLY FATHERS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH, AS WELL AS ALL THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS???!!!!

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 07, 2011, 10:40:09 PM
Okay, good luck praying to Nestorius, who is burning in hell with all the heretics.

Dear FrAugustineFetter, you cannot say that about Nestorius.   Nobody except God knows his fate, unless the new Church of MAB has had some divine revelation on the matter?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Rafa999 on April 07, 2011, 10:41:49 PM
YOU PRAY TO NESTORIUS THE ARCH-HERETIC! THE MAN ANATHEMATIZED BY THE HOLY ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF EPHESUS!!!!!!!!!! AND ANATHEMATIZED AND CONDEMNED BY ALL THE SAINTS AND HOLY FATHERS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH, AS WELL AS ALL THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS???!!!!



I sure do since I know Ephesus was a fake council and my superiors in the ACOE never attended a single one of your "ecumenical" councils. Even Nicea which was Orthodox and approved was not attended but only accepted nearly a century later. Of course you wouldn't know that under your ocean of revisionist history...
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Anastasios on April 07, 2011, 10:42:22 PM
Okay, good luck praying to Nestorius, who is burning in hell with all the heretics.

Dear FrAugustineFetter, you cannot say that about Nestorius.   Nobody except God knows his fate, unless the new Church of MAB has had some divine revelation on the matter?

Can we say that Arius is/will be in hell? I would say that the hymn "Ere the morning star" suggests he is.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 07, 2011, 10:45:46 PM
I'm not a priest, never was.  And, no patriarch or whatever deposed us, or defrocked my bishops; unlike yours that were deposed way back by the Ecumenical Councils, and then again anathematized by the Orthodox, especially the Pope of Rome. 

Your Church headquartered in New York has made a public statement over the last few days (see the OP)  that the Orthodox Patriarchs and all the Orthodox clergy are representatives of Satan.   Is there any need of a formal deposition?    Your words show that you cannot distinguish the true Church of Christ from Satan. 

Does that mean you think the Nestorians and the Pope are also in the True Church of Christ?

It does not mean that. 
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 07, 2011, 10:48:54 PM
Okay, good luck praying to Nestorius, who is burning in hell with all the heretics.

Dear FrAugustineFetter, you cannot say that about Nestorius.   Nobody except God knows his fate, unless the new Church of MAB has had some divine revelation on the matter?

Can we say that Arius is/will be in hell? I would say that the hymn "Ere the morning star" suggests he is.

I have mentioned before that we can say that of Arius since our liturgical tradition (in the Vespers Service for the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council) twice makes mention of Arius' fate.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ozgeorge on April 07, 2011, 10:52:56 PM
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/popcorn.gif)
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Anastasios on April 07, 2011, 10:54:31 PM
Okay, good luck praying to Nestorius, who is burning in hell with all the heretics.

Dear FrAugustineFetter, you cannot say that about Nestorius.   Nobody except God knows his fate, unless the new Church of MAB has had some divine revelation on the matter?

Can we say that Arius is/will be in hell? I would say that the hymn "Ere the morning star" suggests he is.

I have mentioned before that we can say that of Arius since our liturgical tradition (in the Vespers Service for the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council) twice makes mention of Arius' fate.


Thank you for clarifying your position. We know that Nestorius in his Bazaar tried to vindicate himself, and this was written shortly before his death. It seems "likely" that he died obstinately in his heresy and in a state of anathema (and thus is in hell), but I will grant you that we are not absolutely sure of this.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Anastasios on April 07, 2011, 10:55:19 PM
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/popcorn.gif)

Ehhh, you won't have much enjoyment from me vs. Irish Hermit, ozgeorge. We've learned to just state our opinions and move on, over the years. ;)
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FrAugustineFetter on April 07, 2011, 11:02:12 PM
From the Spiritual Meadow of John Moschus, about the Fate of Nestorius and other Heretics:

Chapter XXVI
The life of brother THEOPHANES and his marvellous vision, and of communicating with heretics.

There was an old man of great merit in God's eyes called Cyriacus, who belonged to the laura of Calamon near the River Jordan. A pilgrim brother called Theophanes from the region of Dora came to him for counsel about his thoughts of fornication. The old man encouraged and instructed him with advice about modesty and chastity, which greatly edified the brother.
"Truly, father," he said, "if it weren't that in my part of the country I am in communion with the Nestorians I would love to stay with you."
When the old man heard the name of Nestor he was so overcome with fear that this brother would be damned that he fell down and prayed, and begged him to abandon this most evil and pernicious heresy and return to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
"There is no hope of being saved unless we truly feel and believe that Holy Mary is the birthgiver (genetrix) of God," he said, "and this is true."
"That's all very well, father," said the brother, "but all the heretics say the same, that unless we are in communion with them we cannot be saved. Unfortunately I don't know what to do. So pray to God for me that I may be quite certain which is the true faith."
The old man was delighted to hear what the brother was saying.
"Come and sit in my cave," he said, "and put your whole trust in God that he will reveal to you of his mercy what is the true faith."
He left the brother in his own cave and went out by the Dead Sea, praying to God for the brother. About the ninth hour of the next day the brother saw someone of truly awesome appearance standing next to him.
"Come, and see the truth," he said, and led him to a dark and stinking place throwing up flames of fire, and in the flames he saw Nestorius, Eutyches, Apollinaris, Dioscuros, Severus, Arius, Origen and others like them.
"This is the place prepared for the heretics, blasphemers, and those who follow their teachings," he said to the brother. "So then, if you like the look of this place persist in your teachings, but if you would prefer to avoid this punishment return to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as the old man told you. For I tell you, even if a person practises all the virtues there are, unless he believes rightly he will be crucified in this place."
At these words the brother came to himself. He went back to the old man and told him all that he had seen, and returned to the communion of the holy Catholic Church. He stayed with the old man, and after four years with him he rested in peace.




Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ozgeorge on April 07, 2011, 11:08:04 PM
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/popcorn.gif)

Ehhh, you won't have much enjoyment from me vs. Irish Hermit, ozgeorge. We've learned to just state our opinions and move on, over the years. ;)
I'm not enjoying any of this. I'm stress eating to see people treat one another the way they are on this thread.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Anastasios on April 07, 2011, 11:10:43 PM
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/popcorn.gif)

Ehhh, you won't have much enjoyment from me vs. Irish Hermit, ozgeorge. We've learned to just state our opinions and move on, over the years. ;)
I'm not enjoying any of this. I'm stress eating to see people treat one another the way they are on this thread.

Well, I was confused by the popcorn emoticon, I will admit. But me and Irish Hermit are able to engage without treating each other badly. I encourage others to do the same.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FrAugustineFetter on April 07, 2011, 11:18:22 PM
Saint Augustine (died A.D. 430): “No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem )

Saint Fulgentius (died A.D. 533): “Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Enchiridion Patristicum )

St. Bede the Venerable (died A.D. 735): “Just as all within the ark were saved and all outside of it were carried away when the flood came, so when all who are pre-ordained to eternal life have entered the Church, the end of the world will come and all will perish who are found outside.” (Hexaemeron )

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ozgeorge on April 07, 2011, 11:22:46 PM
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/popcorn.gif)

Ehhh, you won't have much enjoyment from me vs. Irish Hermit, ozgeorge. We've learned to just state our opinions and move on, over the years. ;)
I'm not enjoying any of this. I'm stress eating to see people treat one another the way they are on this thread.

Well, I was confused by the popcorn emoticon, I will admit. But me and Irish Hermit are able to engage without treating each other badly. I encourage others to do the same.
I echo your encouragement to treat others respectfully. Rafa and I have disagreed in the past also, and he knows that I will not allow him to blaspheme the Theotokos without me responding and challenging his Christology, but I would never sink to ad hominems or inane arguments about who is or isn't in hell ( as if I could possibly know that). Such "arguments" are reminiscent of Fred Phelps' "Westboro Baptist Church" and unworthy of the rational sheep of the Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: augustin717 on April 07, 2011, 11:24:42 PM
Okay, good luck praying to Nestorius, who is burning in hell with all the heretics.

I do pray to him, tonight I will pray that he leads you away from distributing fake communion to innocent babushkas who could be going to a real Orthodox Church.
i bet they have not that many babushkas in their conventicles. Mostly religious nerds, emotionally/psychologically disturbed too. That's the make-up of these para-synagogues.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ozgeorge on April 07, 2011, 11:33:47 PM
Saint Augustine (died A.D. 430): “No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem )

Saint Fulgentius (died A.D. 533): “Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Enchiridion Patristicum )

St. Bede the Venerable (died A.D. 735): “Just as all within the ark were saved and all outside of it were carried away when the flood came, so when all who are pre-ordained to eternal life have entered the Church, the end of the world will come and all will perish who are found outside.” (Hexaemeron )


So are you saying that St. Isaac the Syrian, who was never in his lifetime on Earth in canonical Communion with the Orthodox Church, is in hell? http://orthodoxwiki.org/Isaac_of_Syria
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 07, 2011, 11:34:32 PM
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/popcorn.gif)

Ehhh, you won't have much enjoyment from me vs. Irish Hermit, ozgeorge. We've learned to just state our opinions and move on, over the years. ;)

Yes, we have learnt, from past battles, that we do not want to be enemies.   It is made easier for me in that Fr Anastasios takes a moderate view of "global" Orthodoxy and does not deny the existence of grace in our priesthood and our holy Mysteries.  It is hard to have the same respect for "Suaiden" and "FrAugustineFetter" and their bishop who call me a priest of Satan.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ozgeorge on April 07, 2011, 11:36:14 PM
Okay, good luck praying to Nestorius, who is burning in hell with all the heretics.

I do pray to him, tonight I will pray that he leads you away from distributing fake communion to innocent babushkas who could be going to a real Orthodox Church.
i bet they have not that many babushkas in their conventicles. Mostly religious nerds, emotionally/psychologically disturbed too. That's the make-up of these para-synagogues.
Yep. Annoying as they can sometimes be, the babushkas and the yia yias are the Fifth Gospel of the Church! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmD-wDEeOds
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FrAugustineFetter on April 07, 2011, 11:43:13 PM
One supposed ad hominem attack answered by another?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ozgeorge on April 07, 2011, 11:51:06 PM
FrAugustineFetter, you didn't answer my question. Is St. Isaac the Syrian (who through all his life until his death was a member of the Nestorian Assyrian Church of the East) in hell?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FrAugustineFetter on April 07, 2011, 11:55:02 PM
I'll have to study the question, since I don't trust any modern scholarship on most of anything to tell me anything.  I'll have to find some pre-20th century Orthodox anaylsis of the matter.  I trust the Orthodox saints who say he was Orthodox.  In the hypothetical false scenario that he was, the answer is he repented of Nestorianism before death, so he could enter the Kingdom of Heaven; after all, the last second to the last Toll-House is a test of Orthodoxy, and the last a test of Mercy.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: kijabeboy03 on April 07, 2011, 11:57:22 PM
Oh my...
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: searn77 on April 08, 2011, 12:01:10 AM
Okay, good luck praying to Nestorius, who is burning in hell with all the heretics.

I do pray to him, tonight I will pray that he leads you away from distributing fake communion to innocent babushkas who could be going to a real Orthodox Church.
i bet they have not that many babushkas in their conventicles. Mostly religious nerds, emotionally/psychologically disturbed too. That's the make-up of these para-synagogues.

I think you can easily substitute "religious internet forums" for your use of "their conventicles" and "these para-synagogues"  ;D
In all seriousness I think we should try to keep this thread from attacking one another.  Even if you believe that what you say is true (not "you" specifically but "you" in general), remember that we should be speaking the truth in love.  How can I be angry at someone who I believe is in a dangerous situation not being in a Traditional Orthodox Church?  I should be sad for them, not angry at them.  Now I know this is a mainline Orthodox forum so my opinion is in the minority, but you can easily switch that statement around from your point-of-view.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ozgeorge on April 08, 2011, 12:09:45 AM
I'll have to study the question, since I don't trust any modern scholarship on most of anything to tell me anything.  I'll have to find some pre-20th century Orthodox anaylsis of the matter.  I trust the Orthodox saints who say he was Orthodox.  In the hypothetical false scenario that he was, the answer is he repented of Nestorianism before death, so he could enter the Kingdom of Heaven; after all, the last second to the last Toll-House is a test of Orthodoxy, and the last a test of Mercy.
So it is not an issue that St. Isaac the Syrian died outside of the Orthodox Church?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FrAugustineFetter on April 08, 2011, 12:12:40 AM
The Fathers and Saints say he was Orthodoxy and part of the Orthodox Church, not the Nestorian church, despite what the modernists and Nestorians and others say.  T he Jews say Christ didn't rise from the dead, and are joined in a chorus by modern 'scholars', should we take them over the Scriptures, Fathers, and Saints?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FrAugustineFetter on April 08, 2011, 12:15:34 AM
Sorry, if you don't like the answer of the Fathers and Saints about St. Isaac, and you prefer the answers of modernist scholars and Nestorians, then I can't help you.

I'm finished with my other computer work, so, no more time for the forum today.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ozgeorge on April 08, 2011, 12:17:04 AM
The Fathers and Saints say he was Orthodoxy and part of the Orthodox Church, not the Nestorian church, despite what the modernists and Nestorians and others say.  T he Jews say Christ didn't rise from the dead, and are joined in a chorus by modern 'scholars', should we take them over the Scriptures, Fathers, and Saints?
His theology may have been Orthodox but St. Isaac the Syrian was never a member of the Orthodox Church. A particular Lutheran's theology may be Orthodox, but if he is not received into the Orthodox Church (like St. Isaac the Syrian), does he go to hell?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Rafa999 on April 08, 2011, 08:13:54 AM
From the Spiritual Meadow of John Moschus, about the Fate of Nestorius and other Heretics:

Chapter XXVI
The life of brother THEOPHANES and his marvellous vision, and of communicating with heretics.

There was an old man of great merit in God's eyes called Cyriacus, who belonged to the laura of Calamon near the River Jordan. A pilgrim brother called Theophanes from the region of Dora came to him for counsel about his thoughts of fornication. The old man encouraged and instructed him with advice about modesty and chastity, which greatly edified the brother.
"Truly, father," he said, "if it weren't that in my part of the country I am in communion with the Nestorians I would love to stay with you."
When the old man heard the name of Nestor he was so overcome with fear that this brother would be damned that he fell down and prayed, and begged him to abandon this most evil and pernicious heresy and return to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
"There is no hope of being saved unless we truly feel and believe that Holy Mary is the birthgiver (genetrix) of God," he said, "and this is true."
"That's all very well, father," said the brother, "but all the heretics say the same, that unless we are in communion with them we cannot be saved. Unfortunately I don't know what to do. So pray to God for me that I may be quite certain which is the true faith."
The old man was delighted to hear what the brother was saying.
"Come and sit in my cave," he said, "and put your whole trust in God that he will reveal to you of his mercy what is the true faith."
He left the brother in his own cave and went out by the Dead Sea, praying to God for the brother. About the ninth hour of the next day the brother saw someone of truly awesome appearance standing next to him.
"Come, and see the truth," he said, and led him to a dark and stinking place throwing up flames of fire, and in the flames he saw Nestorius, Eutyches, Apollinaris, Dioscuros, Severus, Arius, Origen and others like them.
"This is the place prepared for the heretics, blasphemers, and those who follow their teachings," he said to the brother. "So then, if you like the look of this place persist in your teachings, but if you would prefer to avoid this punishment return to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as the old man told you. For I tell you, even if a person practises all the virtues there are, unless he believes rightly he will be crucified in this place."
At these words the brother came to himself. He went back to the old man and told him all that he had seen, and returned to the communion of the holy Catholic Church. He stayed with the old man, and after four years with him he rested in peace.






You are insulting our theoria level with this scrap. I might as well believe every single delusion every single undisciplined monk ever had. So this so called "elder" believed somebody like the Bishop of Nineveh Mar Isaac who some of the greatest Orthodox Saints had as a spiritual director is in hell I presume ? Hell must have become heaven in that case. This ridiculous story reminds me of the type of thing they warn monks in Athos about in prayer 101 class. It is a terrible sin to say somebody will not inherit on the fly like you just did.


Earthly things have little interest for me.  I have died to the world and live for him…. Farewell desert, my friend … and  farewell  exile, my mother, who after my death shall keep my body until the resurection… as for Nestorius-let him be anathema… And would God that all men by anathematizing me might attain to reconciliation with God….


- Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides



 I hope you can be reconciled with God and cease your blasphemy of damning others with false sacraments.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: jah777 on April 08, 2011, 09:07:39 AM
So it is not an issue that St. Isaac the Syrian died outside of the Orthodox Church?

In a life of Elder Paisios (it is in Greek but I’m not sure if it is in English), it is related that a Roman Catholic visited Fr. Paisios and informed him that St. Isaac was Nestorian.  Fr. Paisios prayed about this because St. Isaac is much loved and regarded among monastics.  In response to his prayers, St. Isaac appeared to Fr. Paisios and said “Truly I lived around the time of the Nestorians and amidst them, but I fought them very hard. I was not a Nestorian.” Father Paisios was so moved that he named his closest disciple Fr. Isaac, and he always celebrated the feast of St. Isaac the Syrian with an all-night vigil.

I realize this information will make little difference to American Milan or the “Elder-haters” on this list, and I’m sure there are other authoritative texts that can be cited on the matter, but I offer this for lack of time to look into the question more deeply.  If St. Isaac was indeed anti-Nestorian, a fighter of Nestorianism, and fully Orthodox while in communion with Nestorians, hopefully those in the American Milan will exercise more hesitation before mocking and condemning so unequivocally those who “fight from within”. 

As a side note, it is interesting that Holy Transfiguration Monastery in HOCNA has removed from its Church Calendar a saint who was in communion with the Church because of some of his errors (St. Augustine), while at the same time they glorify and highly esteem a saint who was in communion with heretics (as it seems) and yet was Orthodox in his teaching (St. Isaac). 

The following words are also of value on the matter, and worthy of consideration:

Quote
Though St Isaac is often referred to without any qualification as a ‘Nestorian’, the renowned translator of the Homilies, Dana Miller, argues that the characterisation of the 7th-c. Persian Church as ‘Nestorian’ is a gross oversimplification, and that, at any rate, St Isaac’s ‘confession of our Lord’s incarnation is entirely orthodox’. Fr Placide notes that ‘there is no trace of Nestorianism in his writings’, and that ‘Unlike the writings of Evagrius of Pontus, Isaac’s work did not have to be expurgated.’ Thus, his example is certainly no evidence that a heretic can be venerated as a Saint in the Orthodox Church, but rather an illustration of the Church’s great latitude and pastoral condescension when it comes to the complexities of schism and heresy when they are still in the process of hardening.

http://logismoitouaaron.blogspot.com/2010/02/o-revealer-of-unfathomable-mysteriesst.html
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ozgeorge on April 08, 2011, 09:32:59 AM
I repeat:
His theology may have been Orthodox but St. Isaac the Syrian was never a member of the Orthodox Church. A particular Lutheran's theology may be Orthodox, but if he is not received into the Orthodox Church (like St. Isaac the Syrian), does he go to hell?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Schultz on April 08, 2011, 09:37:49 AM


Folks,

The next near ad hominem that gets thrown around in here will:

a) be cause for official warning dot (this post is your unofficial one)

and

b) lock this thread.

For the rest of this thread, ad hominem also constitutes saying things like, "Well, you're a heretic!" and "Yeah, well, you're a vagante!".  The ecclesial communion of the participants is quite apparent and out in the open.  Repeating it as an argument will not be tolerated.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Robb on April 15, 2011, 04:45:06 PM
I just read the following, somewhat hard to understand info from the http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Synod_of_Milan (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Synod_of_Milan) article on the Milan Synod:

On February 14/27, 2011, the Synod announced that it had granted full autonomy to its American Dioceses, elevating Archbishop JOHN of New York to the rank of Metropolitan and erecting the Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of North and South America and the British Isles.

Communion between the Autonomous Metropolia of the Americas and the British Isles and the Milan Synod ceased effectively April 4, 2011. The Milan Synod was required by Patriarch Kyril to cease communion with any previous sister churches. The American Metropolia responded by confirming the cessation.  

Now, Why would the Milan Synod grant autonomy to their North American diocese and then break communion with them in the space of a few short months, and if the autonomous Church of North America and the British Isles is no longer in communion with their mother Synod then who are they autonomously under?

 Robb, you need to follow the posting rules as laid out (meaning you need to link to the source of your quote, at all times):  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13455.msg186146.html#msg186146

This is your official warning from me.  - Serb1389. General Fora Moderator
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Schultz on April 15, 2011, 05:13:35 PM
I don't have an answer, but all I can say is welcome to the wonderful world of trying to understand schism, Robb!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Asteriktos on April 15, 2011, 05:42:59 PM
Don't worry, they'll be autocephalous within a year, and then all these problems will be resolved. :)
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: kijabeboy03 on April 16, 2011, 03:46:43 AM
I've often wondered the same thing vis-a-vis the Milan Synod itself. I think "autonomy" has taken on a new meaning since the fall of the world Orthodox Churches into heresy ;-).
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 16, 2011, 05:35:48 AM

Now, Why would the Milan Synod grant autonomy to their North American diocese and then break communion with them in the space of a few short months,


Because the desire of the European bishops of the Milan Synod is to come into union with the Church of Russia and to this end a dialogue has already begun.

The American section of the Milan Synod, now reconstituted as the Metropolia of the Americas and the British Isles, is vehemently against this union.  Ironically a total of 6 of its American priests have actually transferred to the Russian Church Abroad and a further 3 are in process.  I do not know how many priests this leaves in the American segment but it would seem that the Church of Russia is offering many of them a new spiritual home and they wish to follow the same path to Moscow as their European bishops and brothers..

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 19, 2011, 03:49:13 PM
I just read the following, somewhat hard to understand info from the http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Synod_of_Milan (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Synod_of_Milan) article on the Milan Synod:

On February 14/27, 2011, the Synod announced that it had granted full autonomy to its American Dioceses, elevating Archbishop JOHN of New York to the rank of Metropolitan and erecting the Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of North and South America and the British Isles.

Communion between the Autonomous Metropolia of the Americas and the British Isles and the Milan Synod ceased effectively April 4, 2011. The Milan Synod was required by Patriarch Kyril to cease communion with any previous sister churches. The American Metropolia responded by confirming the cessation.  

Now, Why would the Milan Synod grant autonomy to their North American diocese and then break communion with them in the space of a few short months, and if the autonomous Church of North America and the British Isles is no longer in communion with their mother Synod then who are they autonomously under?

Well, considering this mess is two weeks old I think people watching are expecting a lot from us! Let's see if I can help clarify this situation. (Probably not, because any answers we give are colored by the personal perceptions of others.)

This is likely a "clean break" situation as existed in 1990 when the Portuguese Bishops left for the official Polish Church to pursue their ecumenical goals. However, at that time, there were already Bishops in sees that were originally independent within the Metropolia of Western Europe, so it was a simple matter of the remaining Bishops electing their head. 

However, this was a more complex situation for a few reasons. Technically, the Americas were always a dependency of Western Europe, and it had been determined as far back as late last year that the Americas were going to be administratively free of Milan's intervention already, and were going to act as a daughter Church.

We discovered after the designation that a dialogue with the MP's Moldovan branch with a view to full recognition had begun after the feast of the Nativity, Archbishop Abundius of Lecco being the primary participant. (As I understand it, Abp Abundius was not present in Milan during Metropolitan John's visit-- he signalled his agreement remotely-- and thus no such information was mentioned while Vl John was there.) Assuming this was some sort of misunderstanding or misinterpretation, further clarification indicated that this union/absorption was well on its way to becoming a reality.

At that point, many of the clergy determined that as there was not yet a union, there was no reason for a break in communion until that occurred. Others called for a formal break in communion. A small -- but vocal- minority, supported by people in the ROCOR-MP, determined that they wanted to enter into union with the Moscow Patriarchate. Invariably, however, we discovered them after the fact, since they are being encouraged to act clandestinely to maximize the potential effects of a schism, which frankly have been extremely small (all defectors who left for the MP left alone, with no followers.)

In the end, though, there was really no need for us to do anything. Abp Abundius declared that the Milan Synod had broken communion with ALL the Old Calendar Synods not in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. Well, since we are not in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, that included us.

The thornier question, is of course: what of us, then? Well, that's not so much up to us as it is to Milan. At this point we are simply watching the process, and we retain communion with all our sister Churches. We know that this sudden change of course is a shock for many in Europe as well, so the prudent course of action is to wait and see how this pans out. Of course, there have been dialogues in the past with World Orthodoxy which failed for this or that reason. If this fails, we will probably simply take some initiative in restoring our communion if they don't.

If through some bizzare circumstance union is effected, then we have a moral responsibility to take certain actions which I am not at liberty to discuss, but can be easily divined through a cursory reading of Church history during periods of schism.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 19, 2011, 03:57:21 PM
I've often wondered the same thing vis-a-vis the Milan Synod itself. I think "autonomy" has taken on a new meaning since the fall of the world Orthodox Churches into heresy ;-).

Exactly what is your issue with the question of autonomy? I realize our situation is complex, but this seems like a mantra I keep hearing with no good explanation. Please clarify your statement.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Robb on April 19, 2011, 04:14:42 PM
So, as of now the Autonomous Metropolia of America is still under Milan?

If the Milan Synod is accepted by the MP or some other Church affiliated with Canonical Orthodoxy, would the Autonomous Metropolia declare immediate autocephalecy, or try to go under another Old Calendar Church?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: mike on April 19, 2011, 04:17:21 PM
I've often wondered the same thing vis-a-vis the Milan Synod itself. I think "autonomy" has taken on a new meaning since the fall of the world Orthodox Churches into heresy ;-).

Exactly what is your issue with the question of autonomy? I realize our situation is complex, but this seems like a mantra I keep hearing with no good explanation. Please clarify your statement.

In the Ecumenical Sergianist World Hetherodox sc. Churches the term "autonomous Church" means that the Church governs internally on her own and external realtons and the recognition of the Primate is done by the Mother Church. In the Super True Orthodox Old Calendar Milan Synod this terms means that the Church schisms with the Mother Church.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Father Peter on April 19, 2011, 04:22:45 PM
Has the Milan Synod determined not to seek union with any of the Oriental Orthodox Churches?

I know that a few years ago formal approaches were made to a variety of OO communities. Indeed we even had an MS priest approach the BOC in the UK, and I know that other MS clergy had approached the Copts in France.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 19, 2011, 04:29:47 PM
Has the Milan Synod determined not to seek union with any of the Oriental Orthodox Churches?

I know that a few years ago formal approaches were made to a variety of OO communities. Indeed we even had an MS priest approach the BOC in the UK, and I know that other MS clergy had approached the Copts in France.

That isn't really accurate.

And no, we do not recognize the "Oriental Orthodox" Churches. But we can't speak for Milan.

Note: why are you wearing a Mitre if you are a priest? Does the BOC make mitred archpriests? Just curious.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 19, 2011, 04:30:57 PM
In the Ecumenical Sergianist World Hetherodox sc. Churches the term "autonomous Church" means that the Church governs internally on her own and external realtons and the recognition of the Primate is done by the Mother Church.

Cutting out the slur at the end, can you please explain how this is different than what we do.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 19, 2011, 04:35:46 PM
So, as of now the Autonomous Metropolia of America is still under Milan?

If the Milan Synod is accepted by the MP or some other Church affiliated with Canonical Orthodoxy, would the Autonomous Metropolia declare immediate autocephalecy, or try to go under another Old Calendar Church?

As of now, Milan has declared it's no longer in communion with any party not recognizing the Moscow Patriarchate. That includes us. So the answer to the first question is no.

We have no reason to declare autocephaly and we are in communion with our three sister Churches in Greece, Bulgaria, and Russia. I personally do not envision our Metropolia going "under obedience" to another Synod anytime soon. Warning: personal belief inserted here-- I do not formally represent our Synod in any capacity except as a deacon of my little mission. If Milan goes into schism, I believe we would have a moral responsibility to work on the restructuring of our Synod in Europe. How that would work is unclear, and because we are autonomous, this would not become an issue unless, God forbid, our Metropolitan reposed.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Father Peter on April 19, 2011, 04:45:42 PM
That isn't really accurate.

And no, we do not recognize the "Oriental Orthodox" Churches. But we can't speak for Milan.

I think it is very accurate. The Milan Synod's petition was discussed at the Holy Synod of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate, and an MS priest approached the BOC to be received, and his petition was discussed by the Synod of the BOC, and a bishop of the MS was received as a priest into the French Coptic Orthodox Church.

These are all facts.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: mike on April 19, 2011, 04:46:50 PM
In the Ecumenical Sergianist World Hetherodox sc. Churches the term "autonomous Church" means that the Church governs internally on her own and external realtons and the recognition of the Primate is done by the Mother Church.

Cutting out the slur at the end, can you please explain how this is different than what we do.

Sergianist Churches: Orthodox Church of Japan is the autonomous Church under the MP. The Patriarch of Moscow approves the election of the CoJ Primate and the MP and CoJ are in communion.

Milan Churches: American Milan Diocese is the autonomous Church under the European Milan Church. They are in schism.

Really no difference?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 19, 2011, 04:49:44 PM
That isn't really accurate.

And no, we do not recognize the "Oriental Orthodox" Churches. But we can't speak for Milan.

I think it is very accurate. The Milan Synod's petition was discussed at the Holy Synod of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate, and an MS priest approached the BOC to be received, and his petition was discussed by the Synod of the BOC, and a bishop of the MS was received as a priest into the French Coptic Orthodox Church.

These are all facts.

Nor do I deny them. But your words were "I know that a few years ago formal approaches were made to a variety of OO communities." As far as I can see there are twelve churches in your communion. The story behind the Milan Synod's "petition" to one jursidiction, that of the Syrians, as you well know, was based upon mutual misunderstanding of acceptance of the seven councils and went nowhere. Nor do a priest or former Bishop qualify as "formal approaches", because the description implies a synodal action, which isn't the case.

Now, I'm still curious about your hat. :)
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: mike on April 19, 2011, 04:51:20 PM
As far as I can see there are twelve churches in your communion.

6
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 19, 2011, 05:01:47 PM
Quote
Cutting out the slur at the end, can you please explain how this is different than what we do.

Sergianist Churches: Orthodox Church of Japan is the autonomous Church under the MP. The Patriarch of Moscow approves the election of the CoJ Primate and the MP and CoJ are in communion.

Milan Churches: American Milan Diocese is the autonomous Church under the European Milan Church. They are in schism.

Really no difference?

Yes, really. Thank you for dividing it between (S) Sergianist and (M) Milan Churches. We can now put it into a clearer form. Let us label daughter Churches with a number.

Milan Churches, like Sergianist Churches, followed exact same structural division.

S (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6) would, for example, describe the MP-CoJ relationship, and other such relationships. Let's make Moldova S6 for example.

Likewise:

M (M1) would then describe our relationship, whereas a sister Church relationship would be M-G-B-R, for example.

In April it was announced that M wished to become (S6 (S6.1)) and broke communion with anyone who opted not to recognize that action, meaning M recognized S (S1-6), which was never formally done by M (M1) before.

Now, some argue that the wording of the Tomos and M's subsequent actions created a M-G-B-R-A relationship, in which case M1=A. I don't follow that line, per se, because leaving aside the question of the nature of the pre-schism autonomy in the West, I think convention needs to be followed.

Thus, M1 is now morally obligated, before or upon the death of the Metropolitan, to either help restore M, declare their understanding to be A (which I would be hesitant to see happen, because I don't think there's a very good support for that position) or have G-B-R determine their status. I personally think the most logical conclusion is restoring M.

Now this is all confusing because internally M is giving mixed messages. If M is really going to become S6.1, then we have an issue. If not, this breach will be restored once the M's internal agitators complete their work and leave. That would leave M and S6.1, in which case it obviously would be worth supporting M on our part, restoring M (M.1) to their original status.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 19, 2011, 05:02:26 PM
As far as I can see there are twelve churches in your communion.

6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy#Oriental_Orthodox_Communion

Looks like 12 to me.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Michał on April 19, 2011, 06:42:01 PM
Now, I'm still curious about your hat. :)

AFAIK, Fr. Peter's hat is not a mitre. It's a Coptic Orthodox presbiters' hat worn by them during the Liturgy.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: kijabeboy03 on April 19, 2011, 07:05:44 PM
If I'm not mistaken there are seven functionally autocephalous Orthodox Churches that reject Chalcedon (the Coptic, Syriac, Ethiopian, and Eritrean Orthodox Churches, the Armenian Orthodox Churches of Echmiadzin and Cilicia, and the independent Malankara Orthodox Church) and then there are three autonomous churches (the Armenian Orthodox Churches of Jerusalem and Constantinople and the Malankara Orthodox Church under the Syrians).
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Michał on April 19, 2011, 07:32:42 PM
. . . and then there are three autonomous churches (the Armenian Orthodox Churches of Jerusalem and Constantinople and the Malankara Orthodox Church under the Syrians).

What about the British Orthodox Church and the French Coptic Orthodox Church under the Copts? They are at least semi-autonomous, maybe even fully autonomous but I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 19, 2011, 07:42:29 PM

Note: why are you wearing a Mitre if you are a priest? Does the BOC make mitred archpriests? Just curious.

Fr Deacon Joseph worships in the Mozarabic Rite and their priests wear quite extraordinary headgear while celebrating.  To my eyes it looks like a black woolly teapot cover but it must have some liturgical significance?

Pictures:
https://picasaweb.google.com/nycexs/PalmSunday#
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 19, 2011, 07:47:25 PM
. . . and then there are three autonomous churches (the Armenian Orthodox Churches of Jerusalem and Constantinople and the Malankara Orthodox Church under the Syrians).

What about the British Orthodox Church and the French Coptic Orthodox Church under the Copts? They are at least semi-autonomous, maybe even fully autonomous but I'm not sure.

Well, that would make twelve, but my original point is, I think, established. Milan had dialogue with the Syrians alone. Not "various" OO groups.

The talks collapsed.

Now, I realize most of the World Orthodox on this group looking at our Synod seem to think we are just filled with hate towards everyone who isn't us, but to be honest, I'd like to see people like the British and the other Western Orthodox bodies unite, and provide a greater witness to Orthodoxy. I would say that all of these Western European jurisdictions could unite as one Orthodox Church of the West as well as preserve their original autonomy of the first 10 centuries of Orthodoxy, but acceptance of the faith represented by the totality of the Pan-Orthodox Councils and the Traditional Church Calendar are needed.

But if that happens, who knows? Maybe we could even... elect an Orthodox Pope of Rome! (This is a joke. An Orthodox Pope of Rome would likely be assassinated very quickly.)
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 19, 2011, 08:13:22 PM

Now, I realize most of the World Orthodox on this group looking at our Synod seem to think we are just filled with hate towards everyone who isn't us,

Probably fostered by the statement of your new Primate two weeks ago (4 April 2011) that all our Patriarchs and clergy are priests of Satan.  Funny how such a statement can deliver a negative impression of your opinion of us.

"...the American Sister Church published statements which condemned the Moscow Patriarchate as an abomination, and declared that the Patriarchs and the innovating clergy and laity are representatives of Satan (either knowingly or unknowingly)"

http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2011/04/american-and-european-metropolias-no.html#more

Funny how such a statement could make us feel that your Synod is "just filled with hate" towards us. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon13.gif)

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: kijabeboy03 on April 20, 2011, 02:53:14 AM
I believe both the British and French Coptic Orthodox Churches are individual dioceses permitted a number of liberties others are not normally allowed, but Fr. Peter would better know the situation...
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: mike on April 20, 2011, 03:34:51 AM
(This is a joke. An Orthodox Pope of Rome would likely be assassinated very quickly.)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v487/spdk1/top%20ten%20conspiracies/tinfoil.jpg?t=1271010049)
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Alpo on April 20, 2011, 03:53:19 AM
Btw, has there been attempts to revive Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites in this European Milan Synod?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Father Peter on April 20, 2011, 04:09:26 AM
Not to sidetrack the thread, but yes, the British and French Churches are presently dioceses permitted a degree of liberty based on our mission towards indigenous peoples.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 20, 2011, 04:37:13 AM
(This is a joke. An Orthodox Pope of Rome would likely be assassinated very quickly.)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v487/spdk1/top%20ten%20conspiracies/tinfoil.jpg?t=1271010049)

I guess one in communion with a 'church' that colluded with the killing of millions of people and countless martyrs and then officially denied all knowledge of same for decades would see someone who understands that the Vatican has a very efficient police force that would work with the state to neutralize potentially destablizing forces as a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Now those are some nice hats. Anything that helps one free one's mind is good in my view. Even in Russia they know better. Probably because there's no flouride in the water system there.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: recent convert on April 20, 2011, 07:59:31 AM
Sometimes I wonder how many of these "true" & "traditionalist" groupings that often use the terms "world Orthodoxy" & "anathema" often even have any laity.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 20, 2011, 08:11:02 AM

I think it is very accurate. The Milan Synod's petition was discussed at the Holy Synod of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate,


The Synod of Milan has made strong efforts to unite with not a few of the ancient Patriarchates as well as the Syriac Orthodox Church

1. Church of Constantinople

2. Church of Russia

3. Church of Bulgaria.

4. Church of Romania

5. Church of Serbia

6. Church of Georgia

7. Church of Antioch

8. Syriac Orthodox Church


A fuller description of these attempts at union is at message 20
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,4577.msg518877.html#msg518877
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 20, 2011, 08:19:23 AM
That isn't really accurate.

I think it is very accurate. The Milan Synod's petition was discussed at the Holy Synod of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate,


I concur with Father Peter that it is accurate.


The Holy Synod [of the Syriac Orthodox Church] in an Extraordinary Session in Damascus

At the invitation of His Holiness the Patriarch, the Holy Synod resumed its
extraordinary session on Wednesday October 4th through Sunday October 7th.
The Synodal meeting was called to examine the case of a group of European
bishops who have expressed a desire to join our Syriac Orthodox Church of
Antioch. After meeting with their delegates and examining issues related to
their ecclesiastical status, the Holy Synod formed a committee to visit the
bishops at their headquarters in Europe.

This committee will present a report to the Holy Synod for its September
2002 meeting when a final decision will be taken in regard to the case of
these bishops.

TEBEH Volume 1 . Issue 1- Page 2 - November 2001

http://web.archive.org/web/20070122161752/http://www.syrianorthodoxchurch.org/news/tebeh/tebeh-v1-i1.pdf
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 20, 2011, 04:23:22 PM
Sometimes I wonder how many of these "true" & "traditionalist" groupings that often use the terms "world Orthodoxy" & "anathema" often even have any laity.

Why wouldn't they have laity? Because they use the terms "World Orthodoxy" and "anathema"? The second term is used about dozens of times on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, so based on that logic, Orthodoxy should have no laity at all.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 20, 2011, 05:40:36 PM
Sometimes I wonder how many of these "true" & "traditionalist" groupings that often use the terms "world Orthodoxy" & "anathema" often even have any laity.

Why wouldn't they have laity? Because they use the terms "World Orthodoxy" and "anathema"? The second term is used about dozens of times on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, so based on that logic, Orthodoxy should have no laity at all.

I wonder if Recent Convert has in mind the negative and condemnatory tone which is a feature of  much Greek Old Calendarist writings.

Communications from Milan clergy in the United States show they are searching for a way to make sense of what has happened to them.

Mention was made of the depressingly negative atmosphere of Met  John LoBue's "Confession" (the new Primate of the ex-Milan group in America) and that it has no mention at all of Jesus Christ, the Gospel or forgiveness.  As a confessional statement meant to set the tone of a new Church it is seen as a bit of a dismal failure.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 20, 2011, 06:42:23 PM
Mention was made of the depressingly negative atmosphere of Met  John LoBue's "Confession" (the new Primate of the ex-Milan group in America) and that it has no mention at all of Jesus Christ, the Gospel or forgiveness.  As a confessional statement meant to set the tone of a new Church it is seen as a bit of a dismal failure.

Our people seem to like it fine.

The Confession mentions all three things you discuss but in an Orthodox context, something that your KGB-leaders don't really understand well.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 20, 2011, 06:57:00 PM
Mention was made of the depressingly negative atmosphere of Met  John LoBue's "Confession" (the new Primate of the ex-Milan group in America) and that it has no mention at all of Jesus Christ, the Gospel or forgiveness.  As a confessional statement meant to set the tone of a new Church it is seen as a bit of a dismal failure.

Our people seem to like it fine.


That could be questioned.   Two of your American priests have come into the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad very recently and a further 3 are in process.   That indicates that not all your clergy in the US are happy with the new rather negative and isolationist atmosphere being created in what was American Milan but is now the Metropolia of the Americas and Britain (MAB).  These priests obviously prefer to make their spiritual home among what your Metropolitan has recklessly called the "priests of Satan" rather than live with the new MAB.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on April 20, 2011, 07:26:31 PM
From our little fan site, the story of one of the two priests who actually left for the ecumenists recently (he, like the other priest, also left alone), looking an awful lot like the story of the other one who left in 2008, which, to some I guess, is "recent" and newsworthy:
Quote
http://metropoliafansite.blogspot.com/2011/03/archimandrite-wolfgang-officially.html

Saturday, March 26, 2011

"Archimandrite Wolfgang" officially leaves
Fr Christopher Wolfgang, after exactly 20 minutes of exposure for his treacherous and underhanded departure to the ROCOR-Moscow Patriarchate on this little fan site, has claimed it caused his "parish" to turn and demand that he in fact leave for the Moscow Patriarchate!

In actual fact, we received evidence that Fr Christopher had, in contravention of the canons, pretended to remain a member of our Synod while secretly working under the guidance of his former spiritual "father", the "married-bishop" turned "subdeacon" Anthony Bondi to develop a Moscow Patriarchate presence in Seymour, IN.

In the process of discovery, a post was placed on this site announcing the departure and was removed 20 minutes later. Amazingly, Fr Christopher discovered this within those 20 minutes, and somehow, mysteriously, his "whole parish" was asking him to leave suddenly thereafter. His ingenious defense? "My email was hacked!"

Amazing.

It's my personal belief that there are still two more major moles in the Metropolia (not counting assistants) waiting to be exposed. Allow me this moment to put them on notice-- start working more carefully. You are being watched.

I wrote the above, and meant it. I personally consider it the responsibility of every Orthodox Christian to defend their faith, and preserve it from those who wish to overthrow it.  If we discover a heretic, we will tell him the heresy. If he chooses to ignore the truth and leave, isn't it better that people live their lives more openly and honestly, rather than try to convert people to their evil ecumenist heresy?

What I think certain people don't realize is that in fact we are still growing in spite of the best attacks of our enemies, the pseudo-traditional ecumenists. They seem to think us so desperate that we are worried if people leave; they think we are as self-conscious about the authenticity of our faith as they are.

Well, it's not our salvation the defectors are putting in jeopardy. It's their own.

May God have mercy on them.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: tuesdayschild on April 20, 2011, 08:30:42 PM
What I think certain people don't realize is that in fact we are still growing in spite of the best attacks of our enemies, the pseudo-traditional ecumenists.

In light of this:

I'd be interested in knowing, if the numbers are available, just how many people this does affect.  How many people belong to the Milan Synod in the U.S.?  How many in Europe?  How many in South America, etc., etc.?


Me too! If you can't get accurate numbers from the official Churches (which are extremely difficult) then it's extremely difficult to ask them from us, since we've never counted.

How do you know that you're growing?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 20, 2011, 09:33:30 PM

It's my personal belief that there are still two more major moles in the Metropolia (not counting assistants) waiting to be exposed. Allow me this moment to put them on notice-- start working more carefully. You are being watched.


Communications from Milan clergy in the United States show they are searching for a way to make sense of what has happened to them.

They were catapulted overnight into an "autocephaly" about which they were not consulted.

They feel betrayed by Metropolitan John LoBue who has unilaterally imposed on them an isolationist ecclesiology which suits himself and those who are being called the Suaidenites but which was never the ecclesiology of the Milan which they joined.

They feel that the"Clergy Confession" expresses an understanding of the Church which is alien to the traditonal teaching of Milan and they do not want to buy into it.

They feel that they are being treated like inert potatoes who can be thrown from one Church to another..

One correspondent who has canvassed his clergy friends thinks that the split is 50-50 and around half of the clergy will be unable to accept this new Church and its alien ecclesiology.

One priest brought up the possibility of forming an Exarchate of Milan in America under the omophor of Metropolitan Evloghios.

In my opinion this is unlikely to be realised because the priests who want to leave American Milan are already finding their spiritual home in the Russian Church Abroad, and European Milan is making efforts to come into communion with the Church of Russia.

The priests who are leaving you, dear Suaiden, are not "moles" or traitors but simply men who are putting an enormous amount of thought and discernment into the "new" Milan which you are creating in the States.   They do not seem to want to be part of it.  They do not agree with the official statement of your Metropolitan John LoBue that all the Patriarchs and clergy are "representatives of Satan."  They find that they simply cannot adopt such a fundamentalist belief.   So now they are simply doing what you yourself must have done when you have made the five or six transitions from Church to Church.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Cognomen on April 20, 2011, 09:49:06 PM
Sometimes I wonder how many of these "true" & "traditionalist" groupings that often use the terms "world Orthodoxy" & "anathema" often even have any laity.

"True" & "traditionalist" is so 2006.  I now only accept the "Truer" & "Traditionalister" groupings.

Well, it's not our salvation the defectors are putting in jeopardy. It's their own.
Hmm.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 03, 2011, 09:38:40 PM
Saint Augustine (died A.D. 430): “No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem )

Saint Fulgentius (died A.D. 533): “Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Enchiridion Patristicum )

St. Bede the Venerable (died A.D. 735): “Just as all within the ark were saved and all outside of it were carried away when the flood came, so when all who are pre-ordained to eternal life have entered the Church, the end of the world will come and all will perish who are found outside.” (Hexaemeron )



Dear Deacon
(Metropolia of America and Britain),

Your Metropolitan who heads America's newest Orthodox Church has issued an official statement that all the Patriarchs and clergy of the canonical Churches are "representatives of Satan." You have told me yourself that I am a priest of Satan as well as my Metropolitan Hilarion.  In light of these quotations above, I take it that your Church teaches that I (and the other Orthodox on the Forum?) are going to hell? 

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: mwoerl on June 04, 2011, 07:15:54 AM
Saints preserve us! Now the Milan..uh-remnant of the former Milan Synod in the US, apparently currently known as the 'American Metropolia' (a name used before guys, and not exactly a sterling one in the annals of traditional Orthodoxy ...) are attempting to grab the reins of the True Orthodox/Old Calendar movement in North America, rehabilitate the name "American Metropolia" for the Traditionalists, and show the world they can no longer abide Abundius!  ... beat it, Boston! Go away Agafangel! Take off, Tikhon! push off, Pavlos!shove off, Symeon!  Mila ... er, the American Metropolia had arrived! Abundius? are you kiddin??
And hey-publicly breaking communion is better than privately breaking communion! Right? Uh-aint it? Huh? Oh well, what do all us "representatives of Satan" know, anyway?
now, i dont want anyone to get mad-just tryin to lighten things up a little teeny bit ... I know, I know, callin' people reps fer satan is cool, but tryin to lighten things up fer a sec or two is an awfully horrible and nasty thang ta do! my bad! just cant help myself!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Shlomlokh on June 04, 2011, 09:29:30 AM
Saints preserve us! Now the Milan..uh-remnant of the former Milan Synod in the US, apparently currently known as the 'American Metropolia' (a name used before guys, and not exactly a sterling one in the annals of traditional Orthodoxy ...) are attempting to grab the reins of the True Orthodox/Old Calendar movement in North America, rehabilitate the name "American Metropolia" for the Traditionalists, and show the world they can no longer abide Abundius!  ... beat it, Boston! Go away Agafangel! Take off, Tikhon! push off, Pavlos!shove off, Symeon!  Mila ... er, the American Metropolia had arrived! Abundius? are you kiddin??
And hey-publicly breaking communion is better than privately breaking communion! Right? Uh-aint it? Huh? Oh well, what do all us "representatives of Satan" know, anyway?
now, i dont want anyone to get mad-just tryin to lighten things up a little teeny bit ... I know, I know, callin' people reps fer satan is cool, but tryin to lighten things up fer a sec or two is an awfully horrible and nasty thang ta do! my bad! just cant help myself!
Testify!!!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on June 04, 2011, 12:03:19 PM
...In all seriousness I think we should try to keep this thread from attacking one another.  Even if you believe that what you say is true (not "you" specifically but "you" in general), remember that we should be speaking the truth in love.  How can I be angry at someone who I believe is in a dangerous situation not being in a Traditional Orthodox Church?  I should be sad for them, not angry at them.  Now I know this is a mainline Orthodox forum so my opinion is in the minority, but you can easily switch that statement around from your point-of-view.

   :D  go Searn!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 04, 2011, 07:44:20 PM
...In all seriousness I think we should try to keep this thread from attacking one another.  Even if you believe that what you say is true (not "you" specifically but "you" in general), remember that we should be speaking the truth in love.  How can I be angry at someone who I believe is in a dangerous situation not being in a Traditional Orthodox Church?  I should be sad for them, not angry at them.  Now I know this is a mainline Orthodox forum so my opinion is in the minority, but you can easily switch that statement around from your point-of-view.

   :D  go Searn!

How can I or any of the clergy here or the Orthodox faithful deal with a tiny group of people like yourselves who have judged all of Orthodoxy to be priests of Satan and representatives of Satan and whose Primate in New York has gone to the trouble of stating that in official statements.

Also, how can YOU want to deal with the servants of Satan?   And, if we are satanic, why is it that 7 of your priests have joined the Russian Church Abroad in the last year and a bit, and there are two more in the pipeline?

Metropolitan John LoBue...

"...the American Sister Church published statements which condemned the
Moscow Patriarchate as an abomination, and declared that the Patriarchs and
the innovating clergy and laity are representatives of Satan (either
knowingly or unknowingly)"

http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2011/04/american-and-european-metropolias-no.html#more

I have to suppress a host of Monty Python type responses to this nonsense from your Church.

I know, PapaSymeon, that you are one of the good ones who have not swallowed this teaching.  You are in my prayers.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Margaret S. on June 04, 2011, 08:13:14 PM
[I have to suppress a host of Monty Python type responses to this nonsense from your Church.

While I respect the suppression I also rather regret it ;)

In Christ and with prayers for those 'in the pipeline',
Sr Margaret
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: eleison me on June 04, 2011, 08:40:44 PM
Have you read Papa Symeon's confession of faith...  Father, do you still hold this view..."Thus, those who Observe or Communicate knowingly with the ecumenists/new calendarists, have denied themselves the sanctifying grace of Holy Spirit so their sacraments are not valid"
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: searn77 on June 04, 2011, 10:51:27 PM
How can I or any of the clergy here or the Orthodox faithful deal with a tiny group of people like yourselves who have judged all of Orthodoxy to be priests of Satan and representatives of Satan and whose Primate in New York has gone to the trouble of stating that in official statements.

You or any other World Orthodox clergy could try to speak to this tiny group of people with love.

Also, how can YOU want to deal with the servants of Satan?   And, if we are satanic, why is it that 7 of your priests have joined the Russian Church Abroad in the last year and a bit, and there are two more in the pipeline?

I'm not sure who you are addressing with "YOU" but why would I or another person of our metropolia NOT want to deal with representatives of satan? Are we only supposed to deal with fellow Orthodox Christians?

Also, I am not in our Metropolia because of how many people are in it; I am with our Metropolia because I believe it to be truly Orthodox.  People have left Orthodoxy to become Roman Catholic, and Roman Catholicism has many more people than Eastern Orthodoxy. Does this mean that I should become Roman Catholic?

Metropolitan John LoBue...

"...the American Sister Church published statements which condemned the
Moscow Patriarchate as an abomination, and declared that the Patriarchs and
the innovating clergy and laity are representatives of Satan (either
knowingly or unknowingly)"

http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2011/04/american-and-european-metropolias-no.html#more

I'm not sure why you don't just quote from the actual statement that is being addressed as it isn't that long or anything. Here it is if someone wants to see what it says:
http://www.milansynodusa.org/2011/03/text-of-confession-of-faith-to-be.html#more

I have to suppress a host of Monty Python type responses to this nonsense from your Church.

I know, PapaSymeon, that you are one of the good ones who have not swallowed this teaching.  You are in my prayers.


Really I'm not sure why you seem to focus on our metropolia's stance regarding World Orthodox Churches, as our metropolia's official statements seem to me to really be middle-of-the-road when compared to other Old Calendarist synods.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 04, 2011, 11:08:31 PM
How can I or any of the clergy here or the Orthodox faithful deal with a tiny group of people like yourselves who have judged all of Orthodoxy to be priests of Satan and representatives of Satan and whose Primate in New York has gone to the trouble of stating that in official statements.


You or any other World Orthodox clergy could try to speak to this tiny group of people with love.

But we do!

Why do you think that the Milan Synod is back in negotiations with the Church of Russia?    It is because they are being treated with love.

Why do you think that 7 American Milan priests have come into the Russian Church Abroad in the last 18 months and there are two more on the way?  It is because we treat them with love and respect.

What we find hard to accept is simply the isolationist new members of American Milan who have taken over the farm..... for example, preaching that I am a priest of Satan and my Metropolitan and my Patriarch.    But even for these very difficult people we maintain our prayers for their well-being.  Speak to PapaSymeon.  He will tell you how difficult it is for him and the older clergy of American Milan to accept the new isolationist spirit which Archbishop John LoBue has permitted to engulf you.   PapaSymeon understands very well why Milan priests are coming over to the Russian Church Abroad.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 04, 2011, 11:30:11 PM


You or any other World Orthodox clergy .


Searn77,

I find the term offensive.

"World Orthodoxy" was coined by dissidents.  They coined it to be in line with "New World Order" and "One World Government" and those types of expression.  It was intended to be negative and disparaging  and to convey "fake" and "false" and "dangerous" and "hated by God."  It also says "You are not baptized, you have no Holy Communion, your bishops are fakes, they are laymen, same for your priests, your Sacraments/Mysteries are graceless rituals." 

Nobody in the Churches of the ancient Patriarchates should use it. 
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on June 04, 2011, 11:34:36 PM
I find the term offensive.

"World Orthodoxy" was coined by dissidents.  They coined it to be in line with "New World Order" and "One World Government" and those types of expression.  It was intended to be negative and disparaging  and to convey "fake" and "false" and "dangerous" and "hated by God."  It also says "You are not baptized, you have no Holy Communion, your bishops are fakes, they are laymen, same for your priests, your Sacraments/Mysteries are graceless rituals." 

Nobody in the Churches of the ancient Patriarchates should use it. 

World Orthodoxy!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 04, 2011, 11:45:29 PM
I find the term offensive.

"World Orthodoxy" was coined by dissidents.  They coined it to be in line with "New World Order" and "One World Government" and those types of expression.  It was intended to be negative and disparaging  and to convey "fake" and "false" and "dangerous" and "hated by God."  It also says "You are not baptized, you have no Holy Communion, your bishops are fakes, they are laymen, same for your priests, your Sacraments/Mysteries are graceless rituals." 

Nobody in the Churches of the ancient Patriarchates should use it. 

World Orthodoxy!
I find the term offensive.

"World Orthodoxy" was coined by dissidents.  They coined it to be in line with "New World Order" and "One World Government" and those types of expression.  It was intended to be negative and disparaging  and to convey "fake" and "false" and "dangerous" and "hated by God."  It also says "You are not baptized, you have no Holy Communion, your bishops are fakes, they are laymen, same for your priests, your Sacraments/Mysteries are graceless rituals." 

Nobody in the Churches of the ancient Patriarchates should use it. 

World Orthodoxy!

It's as offensive as the terms forbidden here for non-Chalcedonians, the term for Greek Catholics, and the term for negroes.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: searn77 on June 04, 2011, 11:52:55 PM
Irish Hermit,

I think it would be best for me to leave this discussion as I honestly don't foresee any good coming from this discussion, either from your point-of-view or mine.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on June 04, 2011, 11:55:47 PM
I find the term offensive.

"World Orthodoxy" was coined by dissidents.  They coined it to be in line with "New World Order" and "One World Government" and those types of expression.  It was intended to be negative and disparaging  and to convey "fake" and "false" and "dangerous" and "hated by God."  It also says "You are not baptized, you have no Holy Communion, your bishops are fakes, they are laymen, same for your priests, your Sacraments/Mysteries are graceless rituals." 

Nobody in the Churches of the ancient Patriarchates should use it. 

World Orthodoxy!

 ;) go Fr Joseph!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on June 04, 2011, 11:59:45 PM
Irish Hermit,

I think it would be best for me to leave this discussion as I honestly don't foresee any good coming from this discussion, either from your point-of-view or mine.

This is so very true regarding ANY conversation with "The Irish Hermit" who has no real ministry. So sad!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ozgeorge on June 05, 2011, 12:45:53 AM
This is so very true regarding ANY conversation with "The Irish Hermit" who has no real ministry. So sad!
It's no secret that I'm not particularly fond of Irish Hermit, but even I find this a low blow.
I'm not sure how you can say that anyone, whether clergy or not, "has no real ministry".
If you're trying to gain credibility for yourself and Suiaden- you have failed sir.
Shouldn't you be at Vigil anyway?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on June 05, 2011, 12:47:38 AM
If you're trying to gain credibility for yourself and Suiaden- you have failed sir.

what did I have to do with this?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ozgeorge on June 05, 2011, 12:50:17 AM
If you're trying to gain credibility for yourself and Suiaden- you have failed sir.

what did I have to do with this?
I was referring to "PapaSymeon's" endorsement of you. See reply 148.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on June 05, 2011, 12:52:56 AM
This is so very true regarding ANY conversation with "The Irish Hermit" who has no real ministry. So sad!
It's no secret that I'm not particularly fond of Irish Hermit, but even I find this a low blow.
I'm not sure how you can say that anyone, whether clergy or not, "has no real ministry".
If you're trying to gain credibility for yourself and Suiaden- you have failed sir.
Shouldn't you be at Vigil anyway?

I have no need to prove anything to anyone nor to gain credibility from anyone.

 
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on June 05, 2011, 12:54:18 AM
I was referring to "PapaSymeon's" endorsement of you. See reply 148.

what did I have to do with this?

I shouldn't have written anything. This never would have happened.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ozgeorge on June 05, 2011, 12:59:50 AM
This is so very true regarding ANY conversation with "The Irish Hermit" who has no real ministry. So sad!
It's no secret that I'm not particularly fond of Irish Hermit, but even I find this a low blow.
I'm not sure how you can say that anyone, whether clergy or not, "has no real ministry".
If you're trying to gain credibility for yourself and Suiaden- you have failed sir.
Shouldn't you be at Vigil anyway?

I have no need to prove anything to anyone nor to gain credibility from anyone.

Good for you.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ozgeorge on June 05, 2011, 01:00:39 AM
I shouldn't have written anything. This never would have happened.
I often find myself thinking that too! :)
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 05, 2011, 02:21:25 AM
This is so very true regarding ANY conversation with "The Irish Hermit" who has no real ministry. So sad!
It's no secret that I'm not particularly fond of Irish Hermit, but even I find this a low blow.

I've grown fonder of you.   :laugh:  We got off on a very bad start, with the correspondence about the EP and the Pope.  I had a rough introduction to the Forum.   :)
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ozgeorge on June 05, 2011, 02:22:41 AM
Irish Hermit,

I think it would be best for me to leave this discussion as I honestly don't foresee any good coming from this discussion, either from your point-of-view or mine.

This is so very true regarding ANY conversation with "The Irish Hermit" who has no real ministry. So sad!

Parish priest for three Russian parishes since 1980.

Based at major parish  in Wellington where I live , two others in Auckland and Christchurch.

Wellington parish - Vespers every evening and Liturgy 3 times a week for 20 years..   

Central city parish so a lot of interaction with parishioners.

Immigration sponsor for 400 Russian families, from 1992 onwards

Refugee sponsor for 250 Russian and Ukrainian ship jumpers

Nearly all of these spent their first months in New Zealand living with me in one or other of the two houses on each side of the church.  It involves writing Refugee Applications and quite a number of interviews at Immigration.  Eventually finding them accommodation, employment or the unemployment benefit from the Government, schools for their children, doctors,  furniture, etc.


Now 65 and semi-retired for the last 5 years because of heart problems.  Supposed to kill me within about another 2 years.  We'll see!

Have cut back greatly on all the above work.

No, Father, I do not begrudge my time on the Internet since as a result of it 32 souls have been added to the holy Orthodox Church, many of these were through CAF.  I am actually grateful to Almighty God that despite my illness which sometimes keeps me housebound I have some work to do on the Net for His glory and the salvation of souls.

Lots of time for my Prayer Rule, and on the Internet messing around because of the health.  As well as the 32 people received there are about twenty people currently enquiring, some are contacts from my Celtic Christianity groups.  Lots of correspondence.     And should mention that I am often doing immigration work with the computer when I am writing on the e-mail groups.

And I should mention with great pride that four of the converts whom I have baptized have become monks and nuns although one has left after being a monk for 14 years.

Confessional ministry - 10 regular penitents visiting fortnightly for Confession (in front of my home icons). 

Averaging a Baptism a month, and usually a wedding and a funeral about every 2 months.

Cannot serve Liturgy alone because of health, so I serve twice a month with another priest, Russian or Serbian.

It is a matter of regret that my active work is curtailed.  My labours for Christ and His people were pretty full on when I was healthy, and even now I do the best I can.

Oh, and did I mention the 7 American Milan priests who have come into the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad?  - yes, I'm sure my prayers had a part in that...   :D



Oh great. Now we have a p---ing competition.
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/popcorn.gif)

This is so very true regarding ANY conversation with "The Irish Hermit" who has no real ministry. So sad!
It's no secret that I'm not particularly fond of Irish Hermit, but even I find this a low blow.

I've grown fonder of you.   :laugh:  We got off on a very bad start, with the correspondence about the EP and the Pope.  I had a rough introduction to the Forum.   :)
I hate you slightly less :)
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 05, 2011, 02:30:46 AM
Irish Hermit,

I think it would be best for me to leave this discussion as I honestly don't foresee any good coming from this discussion, either from your point-of-view or mine.

Faced with an official statemnt from your Primate that we are representatives of Satan,  it is kinda hard to have a conversation !!   :laugh:
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 05, 2011, 02:38:34 AM

Oh great. Now we have a p---ing competition.


Just following the example of Saint Paul.. But it I'd be happy if you removed the copy of my message in your own message
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: podkarpatska on June 05, 2011, 08:50:29 AM
WARNING: This post is going to offend some of you.

For weeks, Fr. Ambrose has posted references to the head of the American Metropolia stating that the Moscow Patriarchate in some way is a 'representative of Satan.' I have  not seen a definitive response from the advocates of this group.

Frankly, I will not dignify followers of such a leader or group with the respect of acknowledging them by referring to them in any way as being 'Orthodox', for by their own actions and conscious choice, they have clearly decided to be separate from canonical Orthodoxy of the ancient Patriarchates and our related autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox Churches. The lack of charity in their hearts made apparent by the arrogance in their own writings here differentiates them from many here who are part of Orthodox jurisdictions currently outside of communion with the majority of us but who do not spread calumny and falsehoods.

As an American, I will respect their choices and defend their right to make them, but I do not have to dignify them by referring to them as being in some way part of Orthodox Christianity.

As to the use of the term 'World Orthodoxy', I agree with Father Ambrose in that it is as derogatory a pejorative as the banned terms that he referenced and I would join with him in asking that its use not be permitted.

My church, my bishops and my priests, including my late father and brother, are under the jurisdiction of a Diocese under the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch and thereby in full communion with our brothers and sisters of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Patriarch of Moscow. If anyone proclaims that the Moscow Patriarchate is somehow satanic, then by extension they must make the same claim of any church, bishop or priest in communion with her. Sorry, but I must take this personally and I will not let it pass without a response.

Such a claim might be expected from a source such as an extreme Protestant evangelical attempting 'missionary' work among our people, but it can not be tolerated from someone purporting to be a righteous Orthodox Christian!

This is a grave claim, a most grievous insult and an historically typical approach from the playbook of any committed schismatics whose intentions are to cause to further division within God's Church and sow discord and anger among her children.

The 'ad hominem' attack made upon Fr. Ambrose was uncalled for, un-Christian and was a malicious falsehood.

I don't 'hate' anyone, particularly those to whom I refer. However, it is our Christian responsibility to speak out and defend the truth when it is under attack and the claim of our being representatives of Satan merits a strong and vigorous response. Lord, have mercy.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: mike on June 05, 2011, 09:28:19 AM
Podkaraptska, with all respect I disagree. The reason that many members of the Milan Synod started to posting here and presenting their opinion about the World Orthodoxy (I like this term) is because Irish Hermit keeps starting here many thread about their Church, schisms within them and the possibility of merging them into the Russian Orthodox Church. I have no idea why is he doing that because he seems to be the only one poster (apart from the MS members) to be interested in that. I'm not surprised that they started to posting here more often to defend (maybe not always properly and politely) their Church.


Conclusion: If Irish Hermit wouldn't had started a bunch of thread about the Milan Synod we wouldn't have members of them insulting our Church.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on June 05, 2011, 10:55:31 AM
Podkaraptska, with all respect I disagree. The reason that many members of the Milan Synod started to posting here and presenting their opinion about the World Orthodoxy (I like this term) is because Irish Hermit keeps starting here many thread about their Church, schisms within them and the possibility of merging them into the Russian Orthodox Church. I have no idea why is he doing that because he seems to be the only one poster (apart from the MS members) to be interested in that. I'm not surprised that they started to posting here more often to defend (maybe not always properly and politely) their Church.


Conclusion: If Irish Hermit wouldn't had started a bunch of thread about the Milan Synod we wouldn't have members of them insulting our Church.

Poor Podkaraptska; it is regretful that you may have taken what's been said in these threads personally. The reason you find no defense of our Metropolitan's words as characterized by The Irish Hermit (TIH) of New Zealand is simple. Our Metropolitan never said it! Others might have stated it but Metropolitan John never did. He did write a private e-mail to TIH and referred to Rome as the satanic empire and criticized the MP's ecumenical involvement with Rome. An e-mail, however, TIH denies ever receiving. In that denial he calls my Metropolitan a liar?  TIH is everywhere slaming our Metropolia especially now that we are no longer with the Milan Synod who appears to have MP leanings having abandoned their original TOC purpose among Western Europeans.

So what would you have us do? Defend ourselves everywhere on the internet against a sole hieromonk who is obsessed with our elimination? No, the best action is no action while he banters on in his solo crusade against our humble Metropolia.  When it comes to others asking rational questions about us we should answer with love and respect. I trust his authorities will catch up to him eventually.

Lastly Podkaraptska, if a church is not part of the Body of Christ because of their passionate leadership in heresy are they not part of satan's congregation? 
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: eleison me on June 05, 2011, 11:13:06 AM
your blessing Papa Symeon,

Some clarification please...  I am confused as to actual ecclesiology of your synod, at times it appears as that of Cyprianites, at times Matthewite/current Florinite, forgive the terms, I only use them to distinguish particulars...
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 05, 2011, 11:28:19 AM
Podkaraptska, with all respect I disagree. The reason that many members of the Milan Synod started to posting here and presenting their opinion about the World Orthodoxy (I like this term) is because Irish Hermit keeps starting here many thread about their Church, schisms within them and the possibility of merging them into the Russian Orthodox Church. I have no idea why is he doing that because he seems to be the only one poster (apart from the MS members) to be interested in that. I'm not surprised that they started to posting here more often to defend (maybe not always properly and politely) their Church.


Conclusion: If Irish Hermit wouldn't had started a bunch of thread about the Milan Synod we wouldn't have members of them insulting our Church.

Dear Michal,

Irish Hermit has started 4 threads about the Synod of Milan


1. Milan Synod Desires Union with Moscow
2. Milan Synod - Primate's Encyclical
3. ROCOR receives another Priest from former Milan Synod USA
4. Milan says Goodbye to its American sector


There are 7 more Milan threads started by other members:

1. The Synod of Milan........................................................................Jennifer
2. Milan Synod's Mess.........................................................................Robb
3. Milan Synod Removes American Links From Official Sites........................Suaiden
4. Milan Synod and American Metropolia publicly break communion..............Suaiden
5. Synod of Milan??............................................................................Ben
6. Diptychs, Diptychs, who is listed in the Diptychs?................................ozgeorge
7. What warrants believers creating there own Jurisdiction?......................prodromas

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 05, 2011, 11:46:08 AM
The reason you find no defense of our Metropolitan's words as characterized by The Irish Hermit (TIH) of New Zealand is simple. Our Metropolitan never said it!

PapaSymeon,  English is my native tongue.  I read it reasonably well.  There are two separate statements from your Primate clearly stating that the Patriarch and the clergy are representatives of Satan.

Your Primate's words are recorded here:

1.  The news blog run by the American Milan deacon Joseph Suaiden.

http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2011/04/american-and-european-metropolias-no.html#more

2.  The official website of American Milan

http://www.milansynodusa.org/2011/03/text-of-confession-of-faith-to-be.html#more

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: podkarpatska on June 05, 2011, 03:16:53 PM
I said what I posted because there was an attack on the ministry of Fr. Ambrose that appeared to be out of line. I was brought up to respect the clergy, even those with whom we held disagreements.

We can be, and have been with others, in a state of schism, without resorting to name calling and 'ad hominen' attacks. Certainly there are other priests here who are in schism with my hierarchs, but we do not stoop to the the levels that some who post on the Milan threads seem to reach. Indeed, for example, I have the greatest respect for Fr. Anastasios, with whom he and I disagree about many important Orthodox issues, but neither he nor I would question each other's integrity or motives.

Indeed, for most of Fr. Ambrose's ministry within ROCOR, he would have been regarded by my hierarchs, and hence by me and my pastor, as being part of a church in schism. (I remember how much it pained my father when the late Metropolitan Laurus' aunt and uncle died over the years in our ACROD parish and he could not participate in the memorial services in the church with his family.) However, the Lord has worked to heal that schism, which was as bitter and full of invective as any schism of the 20th century. Let us pray that we do recognize that there is room for serious disagreement among ourselves without the need for communal separation and that our differences can be bridged with love and respect.

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: mwoerl on June 06, 2011, 02:13:51 AM
I find it more than bold, and also pretty embarrassing- that a group who was once in communion with the Ukrainian Church under "Patriarch" Filaret (Denisenko), the only Bishop ever to be deposed by the Moscow Patriarchate due to his cooperation and collaboration with the Soviet government and their security organs, can now, undoubtedly with a straight face, call the Moscow Patriarchate an "abomination," and everyone in legitimate Orthodox Churches who do not share the viewpoint of their tiny group, "representatives of Satan."

Which can only raise a completely justifiable question: When the Milan Synod was in communion with Filaret (Denisenko), and/or when the Milan Synod sought ties with the Moscow Patriarchate - were the clergy and laity of the Milan Synod also "knowing or unknowing representatives of Satan?"

Have all of the "hierarchs" of the Milan Synod who apparently recognized some sort of "legitimacy problem" (Archbishop Auxentios notwithstanding ...) and sought to solve it by these rather unconventional means-for those of the "True Orthodox" perusasion-now departed from the fold?

When one does not wish such questions as these to be posed, one would do well to sufficiently research the history, proclivities, actions, etc., of organizations that one joins. Это долгий путь из Суздаля ...
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 06, 2011, 02:40:16 AM

......a sole hieromonk who is obsessed with our elimination?


There are two little autogenic Churches for which I have a special affection - the Celtic Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Mael, Brittany headquarters) and the Synod of Milan.   I am not obsessed with your elimination.  I *am* obsessed with your entry into the fulness of the Orthodox Church and pray for that very often.

I would say that I am not the "sole" person interested in the Milan Synod.  My Metropolitan has received 7 Milan priests into the Russian Church Abroad and there are two more to come.   His willingness to do this speaks of 1) his interest in the Milan Synod and 2) his confidence that Milan priests are trustworthy and able to be received as continuing priests (by cheirothesia and not by ordination.)
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on June 06, 2011, 10:13:24 AM

Poor Podkaraptska; it is regretful that you may have taken what's been said in these threads personally. The reason you find no defense of our Metropolitan's words as characterized by The Irish Hermit (TIH) of New Zealand is simple. Our Metropolitan never said it! Others might have stated it but Metropolitan John never did.

You may be technically correct in saying that Metropolitan John never actually said this: "...the American Sister Church published statements which condemned the Moscow Patriarchate as an abomination, and declared that the Patriarchs and the innovating clergy and laity are representatives of Satan (either knowingly or unknowingly), and further warned the Patriarchs and others that if the Patriarchs do indeed retain the holy Mysteries they commit the greatest of blasphemies." This statement has merely appeared on official "Metropolia" documents, such as the new oath of allegiance signed by the "Metropolia' priests.

Your denial of Metropolitan John's culpability actually weakens your case because I do not believe that your jurisdiction would have ever drafted and published such language without the active involvement of the Metropolitan. So, can we consider adding mendacity to schism as terms that may be applicable to y'all? Actually, heeding Podkarpatska's words may be the best thing for y'all. Listening to father Ambrose, instead to the siren songs of your leaders may be beneficial as well.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on June 06, 2011, 12:16:14 PM

Poor Podkaraptska; it is regretful that you may have taken what's been said in these threads personally. The reason you find no defense of our Metropolitan's words as characterized by The Irish Hermit (TIH) of New Zealand is simple. Our Metropolitan never said it! Others might have stated it but Metropolitan John never did.

You may be technically correct in saying that Metropolitan John never actually said this: "...the American Sister Church published statements which condemned the Moscow Patriarchate as an abomination, and declared that the Patriarchs and the innovating clergy and laity are representatives of Satan (either knowingly or unknowingly), and further warned the Patriarchs and others that if the Patriarchs do indeed retain the holy Mysteries they commit the greatest of blasphemies." This statement has merely appeared on official "Metropolia" documents, such as the new oath of allegiance signed by the "Metropolia' priests.

Your denial of Metropolitan John's culpability actually weakens your case because I do not believe that your jurisdiction would have ever drafted and published such language without the active involvement of the Metropolitan. So, can we consider adding mendacity to schism as terms that may be applicable to y'all? Actually, heeding Podkarpatska's words may be the best thing for y'all. Listening to father Ambrose, instead to the siren songs of your leaders may be beneficial as well.

You have not quoted any official document of our Metropolia. No matter what my response or the official response to any of the accusations placed in this thread you all from World Orthodoxy will not like it anyway because of World Orthodoxy's depth of involvement with various heretical practices of ecumenism, following an unlawful calendar, neo-papalism and neo-sergiism (sp?). It is you who should stop blindly following your ill-fated leaders. I have reviewed our official Clergy Confession and that of our Greek Sister Church; neither state what TIH claims it says.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 06, 2011, 12:37:18 PM
/\   
"As a result of this statement, the American Sister Church published statements
which condemned the Moscow Patriarchate as an abomination, and declared that the
Patriarchs and the innovating clergy and laity are representatives of Satan
(either knowingly or unknowingly)
, and further warned the Patriarchs and others
that if the Patriarchs do indeed retain the holy Mysteries they commit the
greatest of blasphemies."

http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2011/04/american-and-european-metropolias-no.html#\more

And from the Clergy Confession, for which Metropolitan John LoBue originally demanded signatures
from all clergy but had to cancel this directive when it became clear that most of his clergy refused
to sign:


d) For, if the Patriarchs and Hierarchs, who commit themselves to the teachings of these heresies, after repeated warnings, protests, groanings, petitions, tears, and earnest beggings, are indeed making the Bloodless Sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the Holy Liturgy (oh, what a fearful thought!), thus are indeed receiving the Immaculate Mysteries of the Most Holy Body and Precious Blood of Our Lord God Jesus Christ, then they do so to their own eternal damnation to the fires of hell, as the Blessed and Holy Apostle explains;

(e) Therefore, if they are under this deadly condemnation by the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, due to their own willful wickedness (becoming inheritors to the accusation of St. Stephen the Protomartyr, “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye”..) , how much more must we pray continually for their conversion to Jesus Christ; yet, we must also refrain from contaminating ourselves with such darkness and wickedness. For what concord hath Light with darkness, Christ with Satan (for it is Satan that they [the innovating clergy and laymen] knowingly or unknowingly represent, to great sadness)

http://metropoliafansite.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-clergy-confession-approved.html

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on June 06, 2011, 02:14:22 PM
^^^^
What Father Ambrose cited. It looks like you should reread your own sources.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on June 06, 2011, 04:25:03 PM
^^^^
What Father Ambrose cited. It looks like you should reread your own sources.

Appears to be manipulative quotations having omitted previous parts of that section as such:

"(4) (a) As no judgment by universal consent, as of yet, of the Orthodox has been rendered concerning whether the Mysteries of the World Orthodox Patriarchates are True Mysteries, no position can be forced outside of the rulings of local Synods and their requirements;

(b) As such no rash accusations of heresy should be leveled against those who take the positive position that the World Orthodox still retain the consecrating Grace of the Holy Mysteries;

(c) However, as the World Orthodox have fallen repeatedly for several generations under anathemas, mass canonical violations, and most importantly of all, a deficiency in the Faith, and have not sought to correct these problems after decades of stern warnings by their own most celebrated luminaries, communion in the Mysteries, or prayer, and any other expressions of Catholic Unity is impossible."

Read the entire Confession in its full context: http://www.milansynodusa.org/2011/03/text-of-confession-of-faith-to-be.html#more (http://www.milansynodusa.org/2011/03/text-of-confession-of-faith-to-be.html#more)

Also TIH likes to quote from unofficial sources like the urls he cited.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on June 06, 2011, 04:50:52 PM


"(4) (a) As no judgment by universal consent, as of yet, of the Orthodox has been rendered concerning whether the Mysteries of the World Orthodox Patriarchates are True Mysteries, no position can be forced outside of the rulings of local Synods and their requirements;

(b) As such no rash accusations of heresy should be leveled against those who take the positive position that the World Orthodox still retain the consecrating Grace of the Holy Mysteries;

(c) However, as the World Orthodox have fallen repeatedly for several generations under anathemas, mass canonical violations, and most importantly of all, a deficiency in the Faith, and have not sought to correct these problems after decades of stern warnings by their own most celebrated luminaries, communion in the Mysteries, or prayer, and any other expressions of Catholic Unity is impossible.

d) For, if the Patriarchs and Hierarchs, who commit themselves to the teachings of these heresies, after repeated warnings, protests, groanings, petitions, tears, and earnest beggings, are indeed making the Bloodless Sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the Holy Liturgy (oh, what a fearful thought!), thus are indeed receiving the Immaculate Mysteries of the Most Holy Body and Precious Blood of Our Lord God Jesus Christ, then they do so to their own eternal damnation to the fires of hell, as the Blessed and Holy Apostle explains;

(e) Therefore, if they are under this deadly condemnation by the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, due to their own willful wickedness (becoming inheritors to the accusation of St. Stephen the Protomartyr, “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye”..) , how much more must we pray continually for their conversion to Jesus Christ; yet, we must also refrain from contaminating ourselves with such darkness and wickedness. For what concord hath Light with darkness, Christ with Satan (for it is Satan that they [the innovating clergy and laymen] knowingly or unknowingly represent, to great sadness)"

Where is the MP or Fr Ambrose directly mentioned above?

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 06, 2011, 05:15:18 PM

Appears to be manipulative quotations having omitted previous parts of that section as such:


No manipulation, PapaSymeon.  Why doesn't your Primate remove the references to representatives of Satan from the Clergy Confession?   Did it drop in there by mistake, while he was half asleep?   Was it inserted by some naughty deacon? 

Quote


Also TIH likes to quote from unofficial sources like the urls he cited.

 Ad hominem!

Your deacon Joseph Suaiden writes that the Confession on the site I quoted is quite official...  Since he seems to act as MAB's information officer he ought to be trustworthy.

"This statement has been approved for inclusion in the official website of the
Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of North and South America, and the British Isles
(currently website at milansynodusa.org) and will be included when the revised
website opens shortly.

"Till then, it is on the Milan Fan Site link below--

http://milanfansite.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-clergy-confession-approved.html

"Saturday, March 5, 2011
"New Clergy Confession Approved"

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on June 06, 2011, 07:04:47 PM
^^^^
What Father Ambrose cited. It looks like you should reread your own sources.

Appears to be manipulative quotations having omitted previous parts of that section as such:

"(4) (a) As no judgment by universal consent, as of yet, of the Orthodox has been rendered concerning whether the Mysteries of the World Orthodox Patriarchates are True Mysteries, no position can be forced outside of the rulings of local Synods and their requirements;

(b) As such no rash accusations of heresy should be leveled against those who take the positive position that the World Orthodox still retain the consecrating Grace of the Holy Mysteries;

(c) However, as the World Orthodox have fallen repeatedly for several generations under anathemas, mass canonical violations, and most importantly of all, a deficiency in the Faith, and have not sought to correct these problems after decades of stern warnings by their own most celebrated luminaries, communion in the Mysteries, or prayer, and any other expressions of Catholic Unity is impossible."

Read the entire Confession in its full context: http://www.milansynodusa.org/2011/03/text-of-confession-of-faith-to-be.html#more (http://www.milansynodusa.org/2011/03/text-of-confession-of-faith-to-be.html#more)

Also TIH likes to quote from unofficial sources like the urls he cited.

I don't get it: On the one hand, this Confession reads out all Orthodox Churches in communion with the EP as being in error, specifically says that all of the heads of all jurisdictions are receiving the Holy Mysteries to their condemnation, and that their priests, knowingly or unknowingly, represent Satan. On the other hand the Confession has some weasel words about not formally accusing all Orthodox jurisdictions of heresy. Why bother, when they are tools of Satan and are condemned anyway? THe actula effect is the same. There is no reading out of context; instead, there is intemperate, schismatic writing.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: podkarpatska on June 07, 2011, 09:14:26 AM
^^^^
What Father Ambrose cited. It looks like you should reread your own sources.

Appears to be manipulative quotations having omitted previous parts of that section as such:

"(4) (a) As no judgment by universal consent, as of yet, of the Orthodox has been rendered concerning whether the Mysteries of the World Orthodox Patriarchates are True Mysteries, no position can be forced outside of the rulings of local Synods and their requirements;

(b) As such no rash accusations of heresy should be leveled against those who take the positive position that the World Orthodox still retain the consecrating Grace of the Holy Mysteries;

(c) However, as the World Orthodox have fallen repeatedly for several generations under anathemas, mass canonical violations, and most importantly of all, a deficiency in the Faith, and have not sought to correct these problems after decades of stern warnings by their own most celebrated luminaries, communion in the Mysteries, or prayer, and any other expressions of Catholic Unity is impossible."

Read the entire Confession in its full context: http://www.milansynodusa.org/2011/03/text-of-confession-of-faith-to-be.html#more (http://www.milansynodusa.org/2011/03/text-of-confession-of-faith-to-be.html#more)

Also TIH likes to quote from unofficial sources like the urls he cited.

I don't get it: On the one hand, this Confession reads out all Orthodox Churches in communion with the EP as being in error, specifically says that all of the heads of all jurisdictions are receiving the Holy Mysteries to their condemnation, and that their priests, knowingly or unknowingly, represent Satan. On the other hand the Confession has some weasel words about not formally accusing all Orthodox jurisdictions of heresy. Why bother, when they are tools of Satan and are condemned anyway? THe actula effect is the same. There is no reading out of context; instead, there is intemperate, schismatic writing.

Agreed, there is no way to construct the intent of the authors in any other manner. Let them believe what they want, it's a free country and their words will not prevail against the Church.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 07, 2011, 09:46:08 AM

......a sole hieromonk who is obsessed with our elimination?


Speaking with a Russian priest in New York who has had involvement with the reception of the Milan priests into the Russian Church.  "God could not have sent the Milan Synod a greater blessing than its new American leader Archbishop LoBue.   His harsh and intemperate attitude to the Orthodox is causing the intelligent priests to desert Milan and seek refuge in the Russian  Church."

So it would seem to be the Primate of American Milan who is the prime agent in this Church's pending elimination.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: podkarpatska on June 07, 2011, 10:31:55 AM
I have to say that in spite of my lifelong geographic proximity to Woodstock, NY (about 100 miles or so) and my family connections to New Jersey, I never heard of, or ran into, anyone from the Milan Synod. According to OrthodoxWiki, their history is interesting.

The baptistry chapel in Woodstock appears to be quite a lovely structure.

It is unfortunate that there does appear to be a concerted effort by some there to discredit Fr. Ambrose without truly addressing his charges against their leader. Having learned a bit more about them and their history, their current stance as articulated by Fr. Ambrose hurts even more. I do not view them as being emissaries of Satan or the like, nor do I believe that Fr. Ambrose thinks anything of that sort.

I do believe however that Satan enjoys the fruits of their misplaced zeal.

We have been the sad witnesses to much division within our Orthodox Church in the 20th and into the 21st century. Rhetoric can often be overheated in our zeal for the truth. I would hope that despite their differences with us, that those whose consciences lead them to the Milan Metropolia would consider the harshness of their words and ask themselves in their hearts if that is truly the way of our Lord.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on June 07, 2011, 08:04:03 PM
Hierodeacon Augustine, for the sake of clarification, has placed a set of short commentaries on the disputed parts of the confession here.

http://metropoliafansite.blogspot.com/2011/06/short-commentary.html
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 08, 2011, 09:00:56 AM
Hierodeacon Augustine, for the sake of clarification, has placed a set of short commentaries on the disputed parts of the confession here.

http://metropoliafansite.blogspot.com/2011/06/short-commentary.html

This is strange.   Your senior monk PapaSymeon has poured scorn on that site

Quote from: PapasSymeon
Also TIH likes to quote from unofficial sources like the urls he cited.

But here you are recommending that we read things on it!!??
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on June 08, 2011, 09:10:30 AM
Hierodeacon Augustine, for the sake of clarification, has placed a set of short commentaries on the disputed parts of the confession here.

http://metropoliafansite.blogspot.com/2011/06/short-commentary.html

This is strange.   Your senior monk PapaSymeon has poured scorn on that site

Quote from: PapasSymeon
Also TIH likes to quote from unofficial sources like the urls he cited.


But here you are recommending that we read things on it!!??

I would "scorn" http://hermitage-journal.blogspot.com/ (http://hermitage-journal.blogspot.com/) in the way you try to use such sites because The Hermitage Journal, though mine, in not an official site of our Holy Metropolia. May God help you!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 08, 2011, 09:15:42 AM
Hierodeacon Augustine, for the sake of clarification, has placed a set of short commentaries on the disputed parts of the confession here.

http://metropoliafansite.blogspot.com/2011/06/short-commentary.html

This is strange.   Your senior monk PapaSymeon has poured scorn on that site

Quote from: PapasSymeon
Also TIH likes to quote from unofficial sources like the urls he cited.


But here you are recommending that we read things on it!!??

I would "scorn" http://hermitage-journal.blogspot.com/ (http://hermitage-journal.blogspot.com/) in the way you try to use such sites because The Hermitage Journal, though mine, in not an official site of our Holy Metropolia. May God help you!

PapaSymeon,  we have been told by your good self repeatedly and firmly, and also by the two deacons Joseph Suaiden and Augustine Fetter that we must not accept anything which does not come from your Metropolitan.   Do you deny that you have stated this again and again?

So why do you want us to pay any attention to the writings of Deacon Fetter on some unofficial site?   
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on June 08, 2011, 09:18:36 AM
Hierodeacon Augustine, for the sake of clarification, has placed a set of short commentaries on the disputed parts of the confession here.

http://metropoliafansite.blogspot.com/2011/06/short-commentary.html

This is strange.   Your senior monk PapaSymeon has poured scorn on that site

Quote from: PapasSymeon
Also TIH likes to quote from unofficial sources like the urls he cited.


But here you are recommending that we read things on it!!??

I would "scorn" http://hermitage-journal.blogspot.com/ (http://hermitage-journal.blogspot.com/) in the way you try to use such sites because The Hermitage Journal, though mine, in not an official site of our Holy Metropolia. May God help you!

PapaSymeon,  we have been told by your good self repeatedly and firmly, and also by the two deacons Joseph Suaiden and Augustine Fetter that we must not accept anything which does not come from your Metropolitan.   Do you deny that you have stated this again and again?

So why do you want us to pay any attention to the writings of Deacon Fetter on some unofficial site?   

Your words, not mine.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: recent convert on June 08, 2011, 09:49:49 AM
I want to thank Irish Hermit for helping us layfolk who will decide to stick with our canonical "world Orthodoxy" churches as opposed to whatever these alternative groupings proclaim themselves to be.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 08, 2011, 09:58:31 AM
I want to thank Irish Hermit for helping us layfolk who will decide to stick with our canonical "world Orthodoxy" churches as opposed to whatever these alternative groupings proclaim themselves to be.

This particular Church seems to be passing out of existence.

Its major segment in Italy wishes to come into the Russian Orthodox Church.

Its American segment has lost 7 priests to the Russian Church Abroad and two more will be following them
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on June 08, 2011, 04:08:50 PM
Hierodeacon Augustine, for the sake of clarification, has placed a set of short commentaries on the disputed parts of the confession here.

http://metropoliafansite.blogspot.com/2011/06/short-commentary.html

This is strange.   Your senior monk PapaSymeon has poured scorn on that site

Quote from: PapasSymeon
Also TIH likes to quote from unofficial sources like the urls he cited.


But here you are recommending that we read things on it!!??

I would "scorn" http://hermitage-journal.blogspot.com/ (http://hermitage-journal.blogspot.com/) in the way you try to use such sites because The Hermitage Journal, though mine, in not an official site of our Holy Metropolia. May God help you!

PapaSymeon,  we have been told by your good self repeatedly and firmly, and also by the two deacons Joseph Suaiden and Augustine Fetter that we must not accept anything which does not come from your Metropolitan.   Do you deny that you have stated this again and again?

So why do you want us to pay any attention to the writings of Deacon Fetter on some unofficial site?   

Your words, not mine.

Oh, brother! I wrote that Fr Augustine wrote some commentary which was inspired by reading the silliness on this list. Fr Ambrose knows that our Metropolitan is not going to waste time responding to his idiotic posts; and I also know that Fr Augustine, a resident of the monastery, wanted to clarify some things said on this site.

The fact that Fr Symeon has complained (and doesn't seem to retract on the matter) about the existence of sites that talk about our Synod that he doesn't control is not my problem. That you'd like to turn his complaint into an official pronouncement is ridiculous.

And Fr Symeon, for someone who likes to make his sites look official, complete with your own church directories, "jurisdictional sites" (TOC-America.org? REALLY? Adding the word "unofficial" after the fact doesn't take away the fact that it looks like some alternate Metropolia site with a totally different focus), et cetera, should you really have an issue with a site that has the word "fan site" in the title?

Seriously, you two need to give it a rest. But I know that's just not possible!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on June 08, 2011, 07:45:54 PM

Oh, brother! I wrote that Fr Augustine wrote some commentary which was inspired by reading the silliness on this list. ...and I also know that Fr Augustine, a resident of the monastery, wanted to clarify some things said on this site.

And I hope the OC.net readers have read it. I hope they have also gone to the Metropolia's Official site and read the entire Clergy Confession.

Fr Ambrose knows that our Metropolitan is not going to waste time responding to his idiotic posts;

Exactly why he goes to your sites and mine so he can turn our words around and spit them back at us.


...(to Fr Ambrose) That you'd like to turn his (i.e., Fr Symeon's) complaint into an official pronouncement is ridiculous.

Extremely ridiculous. Ludicrous even!

And Fr Ambrose, stop making erroneous attributions ("senior monastic" among others) in my regards. You come across as solicitious. We know who's famous for that!



And Fr Symeon, ... should you really have an issue with a site that has the word "fan site" in the title?

O dear Fr Joseph, unlike you, there be nothing in the titles or content of your blogs or any websites or blogs belonging to any of our Metropolia's clerics and clergy that I might "take issue". (Except for maybe some errors in links and claims, all very minor things that comes under "housekeeping").

My position, is that the public should take seriously and trustworthy what they read on the three Official sites of our Metropolia. 1. milansynodusa.org  2. orthodoxwest.net 3.holynameabbey.org  

Any other sites belonging to clerics and clergy of our Metropolia should be read with a grain of salt and never quoted as official Metropolia positions nor representing His Beatitude our Metropolitan.

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 08, 2011, 08:03:32 PM

Fr Ambrose knows that our Metropolitan is not going to waste time responding to his idiotic posts;

Exactly why he goes to your sites and mine so he can turn our words around and spit them back at us.


Any chance of your backing up this assertion with an example or two of this "spitting"?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 08, 2011, 08:07:04 PM

And Fr Ambrose, stop making erroneous attributions ("senior monastic" among others) in my regards. You come across as solicitious. We know who's famous for that![/i]

  What is the meaning of soliticious?  I would take it to mean showing care, being concerned.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on June 08, 2011, 08:11:30 PM

...(to Fr Ambrose) That you'd like to turn his (i.e., Fr Symeon's) complaint into an official pronouncement is ridiculous.


Extremely ridiculous. Ludicrous even!

And Fr Ambrose, stop making erroneous attributions ("senior monastic" among others) in my regards. You come across as solicitious. We know who's famous for that!


Don't you know why he does that? He has identified me as the more level headed and tries to pit you and Fr Augustine against me. In his solicitous references he's trying to get me to join the other blind-hearted clergy to join the ill-fated ROCOR-MP
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 08, 2011, 08:22:58 PM

My position, is that the public should take seriously and trustworthy what they read on the three Official sites of our Metropolia. 1. milansynodusa.org  2. orthodoxwest.net 3.holynameabbey.org 



And there it  is, right there on your official site...  :laugh:

http://www.milansynodusa.org/2011/03/text-of-confession-of-faith-to-be.html#more

"d) For, if the Patriarchs and Hierarchs, who commit themselves to the teachings of these heresies, after repeated warnings, protests, groanings, petitions, tears, and earnest beggings, are indeed making the Bloodless Sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the Holy Liturgy (oh, what a fearful thought!), thus are indeed receiving the Immaculate Mysteries of the Most Holy Body and Precious Blood of Our Lord God Jesus Christ, then they do so to their own eternal damnation to the fires of hell, as the Blessed and Holy Apostle explains;

(e) Therefore, if they are under this deadly condemnation by the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, due to their own willful wickedness (becoming inheritors to the accusation of St. Stephen the Protomartyr, “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye”..) , how much more must we pray continually for their conversion to Jesus Christ; yet, we must also refrain from contaminating ourselves with such darkness and wickedness. For what concord hath Light with darkness, Christ with Satan (for it is Satan that they [the innovating clergy and laymen] knowingly or unknowingly represent, to great sadness).


Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on June 08, 2011, 08:27:06 PM

My position, is that the public should take seriously and trustworthy what they read on the three Official sites of our Metropolia. 1. milansynodusa.org  2. orthodoxwest.net 3.holynameabbey.org 



And there it  is, right there on your official site...  :laugh:

http://www.milansynodusa.org/2011/03/text-of-confession-of-faith-to-be.html#more

"d) For, if the Patriarchs and Hierarchs, who commit themselves to the teachings of these heresies, after repeated warnings, protests, groanings, petitions, tears, and earnest beggings, are indeed making the Bloodless Sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the Holy Liturgy (oh, what a fearful thought!), thus are indeed receiving the Immaculate Mysteries of the Most Holy Body and Precious Blood of Our Lord God Jesus Christ, then they do so to their own eternal damnation to the fires of hell, as the Blessed and Holy Apostle explains;

(e) Therefore, if they are under this deadly condemnation by the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, due to their own willful wickedness (becoming inheritors to the accusation of St. Stephen the Protomartyr, “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye”..) , how much more must we pray continually for their conversion to Jesus Christ; yet, we must also refrain from contaminating ourselves with such darkness and wickedness. For what concord hath Light with darkness, Christ with Satan (for it is Satan that they [the innovating clergy and laymen] knowingly or unknowingly represent, to great sadness).




And what did I say at « Reply #175 on: June 06, 2011, 03:50:52 PM » ?

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on June 08, 2011, 08:29:21 PM

Oh, brother! I wrote that Fr Augustine wrote some commentary which was inspired by reading the silliness on this list. ...and I also know that Fr Augustine, a resident of the monastery, wanted to clarify some things said on this site.

And I hope the OC.net readers have read it. I hope they have also gone to the Metropolia's Official site and read the entire Clergy Confession.


I don't believe you. And here's why. Despite your claim, you have complained about the fan site, but more importantly, you refused to accept the existence of the Metropolia/MilanSynodUSA site for a couple of years. Even now, you bury it: the only exception is TOC-America.org, where I have complained about the site's potentially offensive existence for six months, and you have finally, perhaps out of fear you will finally be ordered to stop-- added the link.

The reason for this is because before that site's existence, you ran the Archdiocese website, the Abbey's website, and OrthodoxWest (the forum).  Effectively, anyone wanting to learn more about our Synod had to go through you. Even letters to Metropolitan John went through a domain you controlled! How odd!

So let me let you in on a little secret: part of why milansynodusa.org was designed the way it was was so that any number of people with very limited Internet skills could easily be added on and removed; there is never one single site administrator. That's why there are four people running it now. It was designed precisely to avoid any single person monopolizing control over the site. And this is its advantage over any other site run by our Synod.

Quote
Fr Ambrose knows that our Metropolitan is not going to waste time responding to his idiotic posts;

Exactly why he goes to your sites and mine so he can turn our words around and spit them back at us.

But I can defend my words. I don't have to appeal to authority to defend myself. If I say something that can be construed as heretical, I will either explain myself or retract. I don't need "official approbation"-- and never have-- because I don't make claims to speak on behalf of the Metropolitan.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on June 08, 2011, 08:36:29 PM

Oh, brother! I wrote that Fr Augustine wrote some commentary which was inspired by reading the silliness on this list. ...and I also know that Fr Augustine, a resident of the monastery, wanted to clarify some things said on this site.

And I hope the OC.net readers have read it. I hope they have also gone to the Metropolia's Official site and read the entire Clergy Confession.


I don't believe you. And here's why. Despite your claim, you have complained about the fan site, but more importantly, you refused to accept the existence of the Metropolia/MilanSynodUSA site for a couple of years. Even now, you bury it: the only exception is TOC-America.org, where I have complained about the site's potentially offensive existence for six months, and you have finally, perhaps out of fear you will finally be ordered to stop-- added the link.

The reason for this is because before that site's existence, you ran the Archdiocese website, the Abbey's website, and OrthodoxWest (the forum).  Effectively, anyone wanting to learn more about our Synod had to go through you. Even letters to Metropolitan John went through a domain you controlled! How odd!

So let me let you in on a little secret: part of why milansynodusa.org was designed the way it was was so that any number of people with very limited Internet skills could easily be added on and removed; there is never one single site administrator. That's why there are four people running it now. It was designed precisely to avoid any single person monopolizing control over the site. And this is its advantage over any other site run by our Synod.

Quote
Fr Ambrose knows that our Metropolitan is not going to waste time responding to his idiotic posts;

Exactly why he goes to your sites and mine so he can turn our words around and spit them back at us.

But I can defend my words. I don't have to appeal to authority to defend myself. If I say something that can be construed as heretical, I will either explain myself or retract. I don't need "official approbation"-- and never have-- because I don't make claims to speak on behalf of the Metropolitan.


This is exactly what Fr Ambrose likes to read and the Metropolitan does not want! I'll hold my tongue and get offline.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on June 08, 2011, 08:46:02 PM

Extremely ridiculous. Ludicrous even!

And Fr Ambrose, stop making erroneous attributions ("senior monastic" among others) in my regards. You come across as solicitious. We know who's famous for that!


Don't you know why he does that? He has identified me as the more level headed and tries to pit you and Fr Augustine against me. In his solicitous references he's trying to get me to join the other blind-hearted clergy to join the ill-fated ROCOR-MP

Yes, but here's how he knows it's working: you are still convinced that he is complimenting you and not manipulating you. I would never identify you as the most level headed because you respond most easily to goads. I'd say Fr Augustine is the most level headed.

Fr Ambrose has a good deal of precedent for his actions:

1) you publicly offered Jordanville as a good Orthodox place for people to go, well after the union;
2) your actions (the-royal-path.org) caused severe friction between us and members of the ROCOR-A;
3) your new site seems to be aimed to the same effect towards other Old Calendarists;
4) you've never retracted previous endorsements of World Orthodoxy, as well as your condemnatory attitude towards True Orthodox, or even your own compliments towards Fr Ambrose, as well as your attacks upon members of your Synod;
5) you've been the first to defend members of World Orthodoxy, and attack traditionalists in your own Synod, sometimes upsetting some enough to leave;
6) you initially attacked the clergy confession, then placed a copy of it on your own website (in an attempt to dilute web referencing of the original?)
7) you've engaged in public and private slander campaigns against me (including most recently implying I was possessed and blaming me for the clergy defections to World Orthodoxy).

So Fr Ambrose didn't need to "pit me against you". You've done a fantastic job alienating me all by yourself!

As for going to the ROCOR-MP, didn't you think that was a great idea even recently? Have you changed your mind? Because too often, you've not only debated Fr Ambrose, but oftentimes sounded just like him!

If SO, then perhaps you need to start speaking for yourself, not playing political games. Fr Ambrose can get into you because you let him, like a demon. You want to be a True Orthodox monk? ROOT OUT YOUR WORLD ORTHODOXY FROM WITHIN. Root out your pride, your "creative impulse", your self-will. Stop looking for the approval of those who wish your soul's destruction to join their own. Stop trying to talk for the Bishop and start listening to him!

And when you do that, you will have the respect of many, including me.

But I have no patience for pretense and posturing, and neither do many others. The rest of us have work to do.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on June 08, 2011, 08:47:06 PM
This is exactly what Fr Ambrose likes to read and the Metropolitan does not want! I'll hold my tongue and get offline.

As I understood it, the Metropolitan did not want us in general responding to Fr Ambrose because it's a waste of time.

That didn't seem to stop you!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 08, 2011, 09:02:50 PM

My position, is that the public should take seriously and trustworthy what they read on the three Official sites of our Metropolia. 1. milansynodusa.org  2. orthodoxwest.net 3.holynameabbey.org 



And there it  is, right there on your official site...  :laugh:

http://www.milansynodusa.org/2011/03/text-of-confession-of-faith-to-be.html#more

"d) For, if the Patriarchs and Hierarchs, who commit themselves to the teachings of these heresies, after repeated warnings, protests, groanings, petitions, tears, and earnest beggings, are indeed making the Bloodless Sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the Holy Liturgy (oh, what a fearful thought!), thus are indeed receiving the Immaculate Mysteries of the Most Holy Body and Precious Blood of Our Lord God Jesus Christ, then they do so to their own eternal damnation to the fires of hell, as the Blessed and Holy Apostle explains;

(e) Therefore, if they are under this deadly condemnation by the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, due to their own willful wickedness (becoming inheritors to the accusation of St. Stephen the Protomartyr, “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye”..) , how much more must we pray continually for their conversion to Jesus Christ; yet, we must also refrain from contaminating ourselves with such darkness and wickedness. For what concord hath Light with darkness, Christ with Satan (for it is Satan that they [the innovating clergy and laymen] knowingly or unknowingly represent, to great sadness).




And what did I say at « Reply #175 on: June 06, 2011, 03:50:52 PM » ?



I am not really concerned about what you posted at 175.  I am concerned with the words of your Primate that

1.  we are, knowingly or unknowingly "representatives of Satan", and

2.  that if our Holy Mysteries are genuine then we are condemned to Hell by partaking of them.

That is all crystal clear and it is nasty nasty stuff!

"In qua mensura mensi fuerit, metietur Archiepiscopo."
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 08, 2011, 09:50:09 PM

Oh, brother! I wrote that Fr Augustine wrote some commentary which was inspired by reading the silliness on this list. ...and I also know that Fr Augustine, a resident of the monastery, wanted to clarify some things said on this site.

And I hope the OC.net readers have read it. I hope they have also gone to the Metropolia's Official site and read the entire Clergy Confession.


I don't believe you. And here's why. Despite your claim, you have complained about the fan site, but more importantly, you refused to accept the existence of the Metropolia/MilanSynodUSA site for a couple of years. Even now, you bury it: the only exception is TOC-America.org, where I have complained about the site's potentially offensive existence for six months, and you have finally, perhaps out of fear you will finally be ordered to stop-- added the link.

The reason for this is because before that site's existence, you ran the Archdiocese website, the Abbey's website, and OrthodoxWest (the forum).  Effectively, anyone wanting to learn more about our Synod had to go through you. Even letters to Metropolitan John went through a domain you controlled! How odd!

So let me let you in on a little secret: part of why milansynodusa.org was designed the way it was was so that any number of people with very limited Internet skills could easily be added on and removed; there is never one single site administrator. That's why there are four people running it now. It was designed precisely to avoid any single person monopolizing control over the site. And this is its advantage over any other site run by our Synod.

Quote
Fr Ambrose knows that our Metropolitan is not going to waste time responding to his idiotic posts;

Exactly why he goes to your sites and mine so he can turn our words around and spit them back at us.

But I can defend my words. I don't have to appeal to authority to defend myself. If I say something that can be construed as heretical, I will either explain myself or retract. I don't need "official approbation"-- and never have-- because I don't make claims to speak on behalf of the Metropolitan.


This is exactly what Fr Ambrose likes to read and the Metropolitan does not want! I'll hold my tongue and get offline.

I don't really like to read this sort of thing.  It's a bit sad.

What I have always liked reading is your staunch opposition to the new spirit of isolationism which Dcn Joseph, Dcn Augustine, Fr Raphael and other recent converts have fostered in American Milan.  I'd say that you have lost the battle though, because it is obvious that it is this new group which has the Metropolitan's ear.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on June 08, 2011, 10:43:54 PM
I don't really like to read this sort of thing.  It's a bit sad.

What I have always liked reading is your staunch opposition to the new spirit of isolationism which Dcn Joseph, Dcn Augustine, Fr Raphael and other recent converts have fostered in American Milan.  I'd say that you have lost the battle though, because it is obvious that it is this new group which has the Metropolitan's ear.

Fr Symeon, this is an opportunity for you like no other: the battle line is clear and drawn, for now Fr Ambrose has named three clergy: yet you know there are quite a few more; there are many signers and supporters. This is obviously not about yourself versus myself. He claims we are "isolationist".  Why then do we reach out to members of other True Orthodox jurisdictions? We have isolated ourselves from no one but the innovators.

Fr Ambrose is clearly saying you are in opposition to us, as he has before, and we know what he stands for: World Orthodoxy, including an unrepentant Sergianist Moscow Patriarchate responsible for the deaths of thousands of Orthodox Christians, the New Calendar Church which violently persecuted the Old Calendarists for decades. He makes excuse with excuses in sins which cry out to God!

It is not enough to switch your tone, because it is not a genuine change. I appeal to you, Father Symeon. Make that change. Declare you stand with your Synod. Declare you stand with your brother clergy. Declare you reject World Orthodoxy and declare that you were wrong in the past about it.  Best of all, tell this man where he can finally go.

This is your chance for doubters among us to believe in your sincerity.

 I am officially requesting that you substantiate your claim that " including an unrepentant Sergianist Moscow Patriarchate responsible for the deaths of thousands of Orthodox Christians".  Please provide any and all proof that you have in regards to the SMP being responsible for the deaths of thousands of Orthdox Christians.  You can do this either publically or via Private Message.  You have up to 72 hours (3 days).  - Serb1389. General Fora Moderator
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnwarn.gif) You failed to comply serb1389's request. You receive a warning and have 3 days mare to do it - Michał Kalina.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on June 08, 2011, 11:32:52 PM
Quote
I am officially requesting that you substantiate your claim that " including an unrepentant Sergianist Moscow Patriarchate responsible for the deaths of thousands of Orthodox Christians".  Please provide any and all proof that you have in regards to the SMP being responsible for the deaths of thousands of Orthdox Christians.  You can do this either publically or via Private Message.  You have up to 72 hours (3 days).  - Serb1389. General Fora Moderator

I will need the full 72 hours.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: kijabeboy03 on June 09, 2011, 05:55:10 PM
Who does all this bickering glorify?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 09, 2011, 07:52:57 PM
Who does all this bickering glorify?

I believe it is an act of charity to point out to the members of American Milan that many of their clergy have now found homes in the Russian Church Abroad.   As their Church seems to be in a state of disintegration it should be welcome knowledge that somebody stands ready to assist them.

However, this inevitably leads to a certain amount of bickering since those still committed to American Milan come in on the "conversation" and they are naturally hurting that such a large percentage of their clergy have already transitioned to the Russian Church and there are more to come.


Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: podkarpatska on June 09, 2011, 10:09:51 PM
Who does all this bickering glorify?

Certainly not the Church, especially if you are trying to persuade others of the legitimacy of one's cause. Someone looking into Orthodoxy from the outside world would get the impression that this dispute is monumentous in scope. The reality is that the percentage of Orthodox Christians involved with this discussion, or knowledgeable about the American Metropolia is minuscule in relation to the relatively small number of Orthodox as a whole in this country.

Frankly there is no 'proof', or lack thereof, of the Moscow Patriarchate's alleged complicity with the actions of the state during the Communist era that will satisfy the advocates of one position or the other.

This debate has gone on for well over seventy years and to perpetuate it serves no cause except that of
the true enemies of Orthodoxy. (I am not suggesting that the Deacon or the Monk of the Milan Synod are enemies of Orthodoxy. As a member of a church under the omophor of Patriarch Barthomew, I take the position that they are simply misguided.) I suggest that we all follow the courageous lead of the late Metropolitan Laurus (a true son of Carpatho-Rus I might add!) who made it his life's work during the last decade of his long life, to heal the rift within Russian Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: mwoerl on June 11, 2011, 12:16:45 AM
We can argue this endlessly ... having observed all this for perhaps the past 30 years, I can say-and feel perfectly confident in saying so-that the fault is equal on both sides ... neither "World Orthodoxy" nor the "True Orthodox/Old Calendar" movement is lacking in hierarchs who are outright scoundrels, who seemingly have no faith whatsoever in anything "out of this world," who preach outright nonsense, and are absolutely oblivious to ANY Canons of the Orthodox Church except the one that supports their particular agenda on a given day ... the "official World Orthodox" side has particpated in blatant and outright persecution of those opposed to it, and seem much more eager to serve with the Pope and chase after Roman Catholics and Protestants to pray with than to have anything whatsoever to do with "dissident" Orthodox, much less give honest answers for their abuses, deceptions, and totally ignoring the Canons of the Orthodox Church ... the "True Orthodox/Old Calendar" movement is seemingly its own worst enemy ... the burtal and hateful polemics, the endless conspiracy theories about Jews, Masons, the Illuminati, the World Bank, going way past the boundaries of "ridiculous," with a plethora of "personalities" of questionable morality, and seemingly questionable sanity in a race to out hate each other ... whether it is right, wrong, indifferent, unfatithful, apostasy, or par for the course, to be expected, etc., people are growing tired of the ongoing circuses ... one side only cares about the West thinking they are "reasonable," the other only cares about continuing mutual condemnation and making the most shocking and psychotic sounding pronouncement about their "opponents."
To be honest, then along comes a "new player," the Milan Synod's "American Metropolia," with unknown, questionable leaders withand a track record that is ... well, lets say "spotty," jumping headlong into the game and apparently wanting to become a major player ... of course ... why not ... the more the merrier ... I guess ... if you can make a living out of it ... also, many of us have seen Mr Suaiden's "ROAC" phase, and all the resultant declarations of undying loyalty to Gregory of Buena Vista (talk about ... well, you know ....) Valentin Rusantsov, etc., etc., etc., .... I am getting tired of all of it. Really tired. Weary. Exhausted. And-any criticisms of that, or protests in defense of .... - you know-at this point, I really don't care .... please, don't waste your typing skills on me .... 
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 11, 2011, 12:25:37 AM

We can argue this endlessly ... having observed all this for perhaps the past 30 years, I can say-and feel perfectly confident in saying so-that the fault is equal on both sides ... neither "World Orthodoxy" nor the "True Orthodox/Old Calendar" movement is lacking in hierarchs who are outright scoundrels, who seemingly have no faith whatsoever in anything "out of this world," who preach outright nonsense, and are absolutely oblivious to ANY Canons of the Orthodox Church except the one that supports their particular agenda on a given day ... the "official World Orthodox" side has particpated in blatant and outright persecution of those opposed to it, and seem much more eager to serve with the Pope and chase after Roman Catholics and Protestants to pray with than to have anything whatsoever to do with "dissident" Orthodox, much less give honest answers for their abuses, deceptions, and totally ignoring the Canons of the Orthodox Church ... the "True Orthodox/Old Calendar" movement is seemingly its own worst enemy ... the burtal and hateful polemics, the endless conspiracy theories about Jews, Masons, the Illuminati, the World Bank, going way past the boundaries of "ridiculous," with a plethora of "personalities" of questionable morality, and seemingly questionable sanity in a race to out hate each other ... whether it is right, wrong, indifferent, unfatithful, apostasy, or par for the course, to be expected, etc., people are growing tired of the ongoing circuses ... one side only cares about the West thinking they are "reasonable," the other only cares about continuing mutual condemnation and making the most shocking and psychotic sounding pronouncement about their "opponents."
To be honest, then along comes a "new player," the Milan Synod's "American Metropolia," with unknown, questionable leaders withand a track record that is ... well, lets say "spotty," jumping headlong into the game and apparently wanting to become a major player ... of course ... why not ... the more the merrier ... I guess ... if you can make a living out of it ... also, many of us have seen Mr Suaiden's "ROAC" phase, and all the resultant declarations of undying loyalty to Gregory of Buena Vista (talk about ... well, you know ....) Valentin Rusantsov, etc., etc., etc., .... I am getting tired of all of it. Really tired. Weary. Exhausted. And-any criticisms of that, or protests in defense of .... - you know-at this point, I really don't care .... please, don't waste your typing skills on me ....


And on the bright side..... tomorrow (Saturday) Fr Michael Dunstan of Mississippi will be received by chierothesia from the former Milan Synod USA at the ROCA cathedral by His Grace Bishop Jerome.  There is grace at work here, Michael, even in the face of all the awful things you have listed, and rightly.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: mwoerl on June 11, 2011, 12:34:28 AM
"I believe it is an act of charity to point out to the members of American Milan that many of their clergy have now found homes in the Russian Church Abroad."

I love the Russian Church Abroad. I have loved it since around 1980. I love everything about it.   With the exception of one thing ... does anyone who has never been a member of the Russian Church Abroad have any idea whatsoever of how many -well, lets be blunt-idiots (and a lot worse) we have accepted as clergy, without any kind of "checking things out" at all? And the resultant harm to the faithful, in order to ... be kind to clergy wanna-be's? I dont know. I have heard the rationalizations ("the Bishops believe those who come to them ... they can't imagine someone asking to become Orthodox clergy would have any other motivation ....") ... By saying this, I do not mean to imply that any of the people coming from the Milan Synod are necessarily "bad apples." In a way, I don't see how they could be... God knows it seems we have had way more than our quota .... Just hope there are some 'safeguards' that have been put into place ...
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: mike on June 11, 2011, 08:25:54 AM
I love the Russian Church Abroad. I have loved it since around 1980. I love everything about it.   With the exception of one thing ... does anyone who has never been a member of the Russian Church Abroad have any idea whatsoever of how many -well, lets be blunt-idiots (and a lot worse) we have accepted as clergy, without any kind of "checking things out" at all? And the resultant harm to the faithful, in order to ... be kind to clergy wanna-be's? I dont know. I have heard the rationalizations ("the Bishops believe those who come to them ... they can't imagine someone asking to become Orthodox clergy would have any other motivation ....") ... By saying this, I do not mean to imply that any of the people coming from the Milan Synod are necessarily "bad apples." In a way, I don't see how they could be... God knows it seems we have had way more than our quota .... Just hope there are some 'safeguards' that have been put into place ...

I think similarly about the actions of the late Metropolitan Basil of Warsaw and all Poland. He also was very generous in accepting people from different backgrounds into the Orthodox Church (Eastern Catholic renegades, a Diocese of Milan Synod, a Parish in Germany, etc.).
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: podkarpatska on June 11, 2011, 09:32:20 AM
"I believe it is an act of charity to point out to the members of American Milan that many of their clergy have now found homes in the Russian Church Abroad."

I love the Russian Church Abroad. I have loved it since around 1980. I love everything about it.   With the exception of one thing ... does anyone who has never been a member of the Russian Church Abroad have any idea whatsoever of how many -well, lets be blunt-idiots (and a lot worse) we have accepted as clergy, without any kind of "checking things out" at all? And the resultant harm to the faithful, in order to ... be kind to clergy wanna-be's? I dont know. I have heard the rationalizations ("the Bishops believe those who come to them ... they can't imagine someone asking to become Orthodox clergy would have any other motivation ....") ... By saying this, I do not mean to imply that any of the people coming from the Milan Synod are necessarily "bad apples." In a way, I don't see how they could be... God knows it seems we have had way more than our quota .... Just hope there are some 'safeguards' that have been put into place ...


At the risk of 'tipping my hand' I have to tell you friend, that your hierarchs in ROCOR are not the only ones who have acted this way regarding bringing in priests from other churches or denominations or without full seminary training and many, many, many of the current problems roiling around in our various jurisdictions are starting with men who simply have not properly been trained and vetted prior to being either received or ordained and being foisted upon our congregations. 

In the defense of all of our Bishops, most Bishops are actually pious men of faith who instinctively believe in the goodness of man; that people beseeching them for help are being truthful and honest; that men who promise to continue with their education process after being received or ordained will actually keep those promises and that if given time things will get better for them after getting some hands on experience. 

Time and time again the Bishops have been let down yet the process seems to go on and on.  Having accepted a priest it is really hard for any bishop to admit error and pull the plug. Often they simply can't do so without a lengthy canonical process or by then the priest has a cultish following.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on June 11, 2011, 12:10:33 PM
Quote
I am officially requesting that you substantiate your claim that " including an unrepentant Sergianist Moscow Patriarchate responsible for the deaths of thousands of Orthodox Christians".  Please provide any and all proof that you have in regards to the SMP being responsible for the deaths of thousands of Orthdox Christians.  You can do this either publically or via Private Message.  You have up to 72 hours (3 days).  - Serb1389. General Fora Moderator

While I realize this means that I am liable to discipline, I must apologize. Between work and other things to take care of related to the feast, I will not be able to complete the essay in 72 hours. I am sorry, I will need at least two more days. Unfortunately, I realize this means that I *can* be moderated, for not completing my response on time, and I hope any disciplinary action will last only until the completion of my response.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 11, 2011, 07:00:24 PM

...(to Fr Ambrose) That you'd like to turn his (i.e., Fr Symeon's) complaint into an official pronouncement is ridiculous.


Extremely ridiculous. Ludicrous even!

And Fr Ambrose, stop making erroneous attributions ("senior monastic" among others) in my regards. You come across as solicitious. We know who's famous for that!


Don't you know why he does that? He has identified me as the more level headed and tries to pit you and Fr Augustine against me. In his solicitous references he's trying to get me to join the other blind-hearted clergy to join the ill-fated ROCOR-MP



PapaSymeon, that "blind-hearted" cannot apply to the clergy who have left American Milan for the Russian Church Abroad?!!  With Fr Michael's reception into ROCA today that brings the number to 9 -and they are long-serving and devout Milan members.   Characterising so many of your priests as blind-hearted kind of insults the Milan bishop who chose them and ordained them.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on June 11, 2011, 07:04:12 PM
PapaSymeon, that "blind-hearted" cannot apply to the clergy who have left American Milan for the Russian Church Abroad?!!  With Fr Michael's reception into ROCA today that brings the number to 9 -and they are long-serving and devout Milan members.   Characterising so many of your priests as blind-hearted kind of insults the Milan bishop who chose them and ordained them.

Fr Michael is not "long serving". He's been non-functioning for at least 4 years.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 11, 2011, 07:07:41 PM
PapaSymeon, that "blind-hearted" cannot apply to the clergy who have left American Milan for the Russian Church Abroad?!!  With Fr Michael's reception into ROCA today that brings the number to 9 -and they are long-serving and devout Milan members.   Characterising so many of your priests as blind-hearted kind of insults the Milan bishop who chose them and ordained them.

Fr Michael is not "long serving". He's been non-functioning for at least 4 years.

Go through the names of those who have come into the Russian Church Abroad and see how many have been long-serving in Milan. You'll obviously be quite surprised.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on June 11, 2011, 07:10:10 PM
Go through the names of those who have come into the Russian Church Abroad and see how many have been long-serving in Milan. You'll obviously be quite surprised.

Like I don't know? The only thing that surprises me is your obsession. You're now looking for anyone associated with us and claiming they are ours. The Archdiocesan website listed him as inactive for years-- even before the new milansynodusa.org website.  Seriously, I don't have time for this.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on June 11, 2011, 08:50:08 PM
PapaSymeon, that "blind-hearted" cannot apply to the clergy who have left American Milan for the Russian Church Abroad?!!  With Fr Michael's reception into ROCA today that brings the number to 9 -and they are long-serving and devout Milan members.   Characterising so many of your priests as blind-hearted kind of insults the Milan bishop who chose them and ordained them.

Well, your work has had one good fruit: Fr Symeon has signed the clergy confession.

http://hermitage-journal.blogspot.com/2011/06/clergy-confession.html

In a sense, I am glad your church is taking in people who were on the outs anyway. Fr George Grube supports the ordination of women, for example. And even better, at least a couple of those new folk were really unmoved on their support of ecumenism no matter what.

So you are welcome to them!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ROCORthodox on June 11, 2011, 09:52:44 PM
Quote
I am officially requesting that you substantiate your claim that " including an unrepentant Sergianist Moscow Patriarchate responsible for the deaths of thousands of Orthodox Christians".  Please provide any and all proof that you have in regards to the SMP being responsible for the deaths of thousands of Orthdox Christians.  You can do this either publically or via Private Message.  You have up to 72 hours (3 days).  - Serb1389. General Fora Moderator

While I realize this means that I am liable to discipline, I must apologize. Between work and other things to take care of related to the feast, I will not be able to complete the essay in 72 hours. I am sorry, I will need at least two more days. Unfortunately, I realize this means that I *can* be moderated, for not completing my response on time, and I hope any disciplinary action will last only until the completion of my response.

This is twice now you have been challenged to back up your ridiculous claims and have failed.  The first was when you claim there is video of the Pope and the EP communing together.  The second is your latest garbage  claim.    The Church has survived far greater enemies then you but you seem to relish in making a spectacle of yourself in front of this large readership.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on June 11, 2011, 10:26:46 PM
Quote
I am officially requesting that you substantiate your claim that " including an unrepentant Sergianist Moscow Patriarchate responsible for the deaths of thousands of Orthodox Christians".  Please provide any and all proof that you have in regards to the SMP being responsible for the deaths of thousands of Orthdox Christians.  You can do this either publically or via Private Message.  You have up to 72 hours (3 days).  - Serb1389. General Fora Moderator

While I realize this means that I am liable to discipline, I must apologize. Between work and other things to take care of related to the feast, I will not be able to complete the essay in 72 hours. I am sorry, I will need at least two more days. Unfortunately, I realize this means that I *can* be moderated, for not completing my response on time, and I hope any disciplinary action will last only until the completion of my response.

This is twice now you have been challenged to back up your ridiculous claims and have failed.  The first was when you claim there is video of the Pope and the EP communing together.  The second is your latest garbage  claim.    The Church has survived far greater enemies then you but you seem to relish in making a spectacle of yourself in front of this large readership.

I need the two days. And the Pope and EP communing together did happen.

In any case, this is more documentable, but the sheer volume of documentation makes it difficult.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Fr.Aidan on June 11, 2011, 10:33:39 PM
Pope and EP communing together? As in, taking Holy Communion together? That's not true, unless you mean the Orthodox Pope of Alexandria.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on June 11, 2011, 10:38:00 PM
Pope and EP communing together? As in, taking Holy Communion together? That's not true, unless you mean the Orthodox Pope of Alexandria.


I'm not going to debate this. MP responsible for deaths of thousands, that I will do.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PeterTheAleut on June 11, 2011, 10:55:58 PM
Pope and EP communing together? As in, taking Holy Communion together? That's not true, unless you mean the Orthodox Pope of Alexandria.

Yes, the charge that the Pope of Rome and the EP concelebrated the Divine Liturgy has been made many times on this forum, but I've not yet seen anyone prove it.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ozgeorge on June 12, 2011, 06:23:39 AM
In any case, this is more documentable, but the sheer volume of documentation makes it difficult.

"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." - Robert Wilensky, 1996
                                                                             
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: podkarpatska on June 12, 2011, 08:45:44 AM
In any case, this is more documentable, but the sheer volume of documentation makes it difficult.

"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." - Robert Wilensky, 1996
                                                                             

For those who didn't get it, in other words, gibberish is still gibberish! ROTFL!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Schultz on June 12, 2011, 12:55:26 PM
Go through the names of those who have come into the Russian Church Abroad and see how many have been long-serving in Milan. You'll obviously be quite surprised.

Like I don't know? The only thing that surprises me is your obsession. You're now looking for anyone associated with us and claiming they are ours. The Archdiocesan website listed him as inactive for years-- even before the new milansynodusa.org website. 

Kind of like your obsession with making grandiose claims to having proof that the EP and the Pope "communed" together?  One does not need an essay to prove such a thing.  This video you claim to have seen will do.

Quote
Seriously, I don't have time for this.

Then maybe you should not make ridiculous claims about the Church w/o having ready backup.

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FormerReformer on June 12, 2011, 01:54:10 PM
The absence of the video of the EP and Pope communing together is actually proof of the greater conspiracy- where would this video be found? The Internet.  What is Patriarch Bartholomew's title in the Media?  The Green Pope.  Now, who invented the Internet?  Al Gore, well known "Green" activist.  Obviously Patriarch Bartholomew has sold himself out to Al Gore's green policies in exchange for the automatic removal from the Internet of any video evidence of his communing with the Pope.

I've gotta go- I just saw a hydrogen-fueled black helicopter flying above, they're on to me....
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on June 12, 2011, 02:04:47 PM
The absence of the video of the EP and Pope communing together is actually proof of the greater conspiracy- where would this video be found? The Internet.  What is Patriarch Bartholomew's title in the Media?  The Green Pope.  Now, who invented the Internet?  Al Gore, well known "Green" activist.  Obviously Patriarch Bartholomew has sold himself out to Al Gore's green policies in exchange for the automatic removal from the Internet of any video evidence of his communing with the Pope.

I've gotta go- I just saw a hydrogen-fueled black helicopter flying above, they're on to me....

I think you all are making the Pope/EP jokes because the MP can be more easily demonstrated
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Shlomlokh on June 12, 2011, 02:59:16 PM
The absence of the video of the EP and Pope communing together is actually proof of the greater conspiracy- where would this video be found? The Internet.  What is Patriarch Bartholomew's title in the Media?  The Green Pope.  Now, who invented the Internet?  Al Gore, well known "Green" activist.  Obviously Patriarch Bartholomew has sold himself out to Al Gore's green policies in exchange for the automatic removal from the Internet of any video evidence of his communing with the Pope.

I've gotta go- I just saw a hydrogen-fueled black helicopter flying above, they're on to me....
I'll bail you out, chief! I won't leave you!!!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 12, 2011, 05:40:12 PM
Well, your work has had one good fruit: Fr Symeon has signed the clergy confession.

http://hermitage-journal.blogspot.com/2011/06/clergy-confession.html


After messages 197 and 201 I am not surprised.  Poor man!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ROCORthodox on June 12, 2011, 09:50:10 PM
The absence of the video of the EP and Pope communing together is actually proof of the greater conspiracy- where would this video be found? The Internet.  What is Patriarch Bartholomew's title in the Media?  The Green Pope.  Now, who invented the Internet?  Al Gore, well known "Green" activist.  Obviously Patriarch Bartholomew has sold himself out to Al Gore's green policies in exchange for the automatic removal from the Internet of any video evidence of his communing with the Pope.

I've gotta go- I just saw a hydrogen-fueled black helicopter flying above, they're on to me....

I think you all are making the Pope/EP jokes because the MP can be more easily demonstrated

More easily proved?  You have been challenged to do so and failed at this claim as well.   I believe a large part of the reason so many priests are leaving your new organization are ignorant claims such as the ones you make here and other lists.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on June 12, 2011, 09:51:57 PM
More easily proved?  You have been challenged to do so and failed at this claim as well.   I believe a large part of the reason so many priests are leaving your new organization are ignorant claims such as the ones you make here and other lists.

I asked for time because of the feast and my job. I've been working on it today. Thanks.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on June 12, 2011, 10:56:43 PM
I have placed a preliminary response here. (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37080.new.html#new)
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: mwoerl on June 13, 2011, 03:40:26 AM
The Patriarch of Constantinople has conclebrated the Liturgy-in Rome-with the Pope-on several occasions ... I think every year for the past several ... by several, I mean more than five ....
There are various Canons forbidding "prayer with the hetrodox."
First the excuse was, "well, since the Orthodox clergy are not vested, it's OK."
Then when the Orthodox clergy were vested, it was "well, that means not simply 'prayer,' but an Orthodox liturgical service, and since we aren't doing that, it's OK."
When Patriarch Bartholomew started visiting Rome, and conclebrating the Liturgy with the Pope, he would say something like "but, we aren't yet worthy," or "blessed," to "partake of the common cup." So, the liturgy would be concelebrated to some technical point where it could be said "we did not partake of the common cup," and that "makes it OK."
So, they concelebrate to a certain point, the Patriarch withdraws until another point, then they finish together. Technically, I suppose, they did not "fully concelebrate a liturgy," according to the Patriarch at least ... but, since this is another of the continuing excuses why these violations of the Canons against prayer with the heterodox are "not really violations," I cannot understand why anyone who goes along with this blatant shinola is even upset that there are suggestions it has gone further .... because when it does go further-and it will-you will obviously buy whatever excuse is given then, or the fait accompli of some bizarre unia that has been in process inch by inch since the 'lifting of the anathemas' more than 45 years ago. Or, do we still believe they are merely 'witnessing Orthodoxy?' Are you kidding?
Recently, Fr Vsevolod Chaplin of the MP wrote some panegyric to Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov). How good ole Metropolitan Nikodim said union with the Catholics could only be approached on Patristic principles ... the link to this -what can you call it? - lets just leave it at 'panegyric'-was on the blog of some lady that goes by 'varvara;' 'varvara' then commented in her inimitable fashion that she thought Fr Vsevolod was the cat's meow, that she was glad K-somethin-G (intials of the Patriarch of Moscow-I forget the initial of his patronymic) didn't put Fr Vsevolod under 'the boy blunder,' meaning Met Hilarion (Alfeev) of Volokolamsk, who digs the papists too much, and much appreciated the "principles" of Nikodim on 'union.'
Nikodim (Rotov) was the architect of the MP's decision to give communion to Roman Catholics in 1969. Nikodim himslef gave communion to Roman Catholics several times in the Vatican at the Russicum ... the Alma Mater of Patriarch Bartholomew ... a college created for the purpose of trainng clergy to convince Orthodox Christians to join the Unia. Nikodim (Rotov) was Hiarion (Alfeev) overdosed on steroids ... he just may have said something about 'patristic principles' for some union or other, but his actions spoke with the volume on 10, while those words were pronounced with the volume on 1 ... if you catch my drift.
Patriarch Kirill is a well known protege of Nikodim ... one of the so-called 'Nikodimtsy.'
We keep hearing denials of any ecumenical wrongdoing by Constantinople ...we keep hearing that the Moscow Patriarchate-which is lionizing probably the worst of the ecumenists in their history by the officially sanctioned praise of their official spokesman, Fr Vsevolod (who also recently offered to 'pray' over [serve a funeral] Lenin's body, which was OK since Lenin was 'never excommunicated' ...), which is telling us in the pronouncements of Met Hilarion (Alfeev) we are learning that we 'are the same as the Catholics,' 'we recognize the mysteries of the Catholics,' 'the Catholics and the Orthodox are the two wings of Christianity ...," etc etc etc,-yes, we keep hearing that the Moscow Patriarchate is 'only talking to people. How can it be wrong to talk to people?' Yet, all this seems to amount to a lot more than talk! And, 'prayer with the heterodox' still goes on ...
As usual, I go on too long-but one more observation. In the last six months, there was, on the ROCOR Synod website, an interview with Archbishop Mark (Arndt) of Berlin & Germany from 2004. He mentioned an interview of recent vintage then, in which then Metropolitan Kirill (Gundayev, now Patirarch) stated that, during the course of Soviet history, the relations between the Soviet government and the Moscow Patriarchate had "developed splendidly."
Now- I ask - anyone, and principally ROCORthodox-how can we listen to and learn of praises of Met Nikodim (Rotov), who died in the arms of and was given "absolution" by Pope John Paul I, the continuing antics of Met Hilarion (Alfeev), and that the current Patriarch of Moscow feels that the Church's relations with the communists 'developed splendidly,' and just keep on smilin' that ole 'love' smile, and say 'things are swell?' I totally realize that "sergianism" is a non-word from the lexicon of the distant past, and I totally realize that the official position is that all the ecumenical garbazh is 'not subject for criticism,' but ... how much can we take? Is this what we signed on for? Apparently some form of unia with the Pope aint that bad after all ... we're halfway already ... hammer in these concepts for a few more years, and they will have us askin' them to speed things along, right? Or, is this all in the context of geopolitics, which makes it OK?? Or what?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: mwoerl on June 13, 2011, 03:47:52 AM
Wow. I guess I just put the black helicopters on my trail ... wait! One's got a red star on the tail!
a little humor ... yeh, i know, very little ... but if i cant laughevery now an then, i would jus be cruin all da time ....
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2011, 04:53:14 AM
The Patriarch of Constantinople has conclebrated the Liturgy-in Rome-with the Pope-on several occasions ...
No he hasn't.
Next.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: mike on June 13, 2011, 05:07:10 AM
Why a panikhida for Lenin would be a bad thing? He needs our prayers.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 13, 2011, 05:15:15 AM
The Patriarch of Constantinople has conclebrated the Liturgy-in Rome-with the Pope-on several occasions ...
No he hasn't.
Next.

Technically he probably has.  He has celebrated the Liturgy of the Word at Mass with the Pope. 
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2011, 05:19:30 AM
The Patriarch of Constantinople has conclebrated the Liturgy-in Rome-with the Pope-on several occasions ...
No he hasn't.
Next.

Technically he probably has.  He has celebrated the Liturgy of the Word at Mass with the Pope. 
Ah yes, the liturgy of the word, after which he departed while the Mass continued with the Liturgy of the Eucharist (the same point at which we dismiss the unbaptised catechumens). You mean that "liturgy"?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: mwoerl on June 13, 2011, 06:20:13 AM
Just as I said: Now, the excuse is that "he doesnt concelebrate the enitre Liturgy" ... he left, but did most certainly return after communion ... when the Ecumenical Patriarch finally does concelebrate with the Pope during an entire Liturgy, when they share the "common cup," which they both desire to do so very much ... there will be yet another excuse why "it's OK." But the undeniable fact, unless, perhaps except in case of soem organic brain disorder, is that the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople did, indeed, concelebrate. I also may add that, at least in the U.S., I have NEVER heard of a New calendar Church that even includes the Litany of the Catechumens, much less actually dismiss them ...

During the Pope's visit to the Phanar in 2006, "the Pope was received as though he were a canonical (proper) bishop of Rome. During the service, the Pope wore an omophoron; he was addressed by the Ecumenical Patriarch with the greeting “blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord” as though it were Christ the Lord; he blessed the congregation and he was commemorated as “most holy” and “His Beatitude the Bishop of Rome”. Furthermore, all of the Pope’s officiating clergy wore an omophoron during the Orthodox Divine Liturgy; also, the reciting of the Lord’s Prayer, his liturgical embrace with the Patriarch, were displays of something more than common prayer. And all of this, when the papist institution has not budged at all from its heretical teachings and its policy; on the contrary, the Pope is in fact visibly promoting and trying to reinforce Unia along with the Papist dogmas on primacy and infallibility, and is going even further, with inter-faith common prayers and the pan-religious hegemony of the Pope of Rome that is discerned therein."
The Official Statement from Mt. Athos on the Pope's Visit to the Phanar (2006)

But that's all OK, too, right ozgeorge? I mean-anything a Patriarch of Constantinople does is OK, right? I mean-ain't he like the ... well, you know, of Orthodoxy?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2011, 06:29:29 AM
Just as I said: Now, the excuse is that "he doesnt concelebrate the enitre Liturgy" ... he left, but did most certainly return after communion ...
Emphasis mine.
[sarcasm] Wait a minute! Does that mean he was publicly stating that he is NOT in communion with them by REFUSING to participate in the Eucharist with the Pope? Good gracious! And all this time I was so sure that we were in Communion with the Vatican. Well thanks for clearing that up. [/sarcasm] ::)
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: mwoerl on June 13, 2011, 06:52:21 AM
Sarcasm ... haha ... you so funny ... I get it. Too bad I dont get any answers ... but, what else can be expected? Yeh, sure, your right: "he's" not in communion with Rome ... yet. "He" also stated he was so very sorrowful that they were not able to yet "share the common cup." So, when "he" finally gets "his" wish, you along for that ride too? Or perhaps you can explain why "he" has courted after Popes since his accession as Patriarch of Istan ... oops ... Constantinople (didn't they change the name of that place like about 600 years ago or somethin? be nice if "he" was as worried about -uh- some other stuff as he is about hangin' wit da Pope, and the old, outdated name of a Muslim city! i heard its purty cool tho-all them big mosques and stuff ... I heard there is like one real big mosque ... but, hecky naaawww, the name of a city ... who cares! Of course, maybe Tsargrad would be kinda cool .... even better with rulers that capish the correspondin' lingo ... haha a joke! maybe a lil sarcasm too! haha get it? hows come you aint laughin ozzie? haha next year in Istanbul, dude!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on June 13, 2011, 07:33:51 AM
"But against the spiritual weapons of Christ's warriors, the evil one gathered all the forces of the world's first satanist regime. The interdiction of Metropolitan Sergius were the sign for the Soviet Political Police to arrest and banish the protesting bishops; even many who attended Sergius' own "legal" churches were not spared by the authorities, and the chief result of the policy of "Sergianism"—to quote the words, born of bitter experience used forty years later inside the USSR by Boris Talantov—was that "Metropolitan Sergius' actions saved nothing except his own skin." A dark night in expiatory suffering settled upon the Russian land and faithful."

from St. Joseph of Petrograd and the Beginning of the Catacomb Church by I.M. Andreyev
found at ROCOR History blog http://rocorhistory.blogspot.com/2008/11/im-andreyev-st-joseph-of-petrograd.html (http://rocorhistory.blogspot.com/2008/11/im-andreyev-st-joseph-of-petrograd.html)
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on June 13, 2011, 07:45:30 AM
I also may add that, at least in the U.S., I have NEVER heard of a New calendar Church that even includes the Litany of the Catechumens, much less actually dismiss them ...


Well, you cannot say that anymore because I attest that in my "New Calendar" OCA church our priest has never skipped over the Litany of the Cathechumens, to include the concluding prayer and their dismissal.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: recent convert on June 13, 2011, 08:08:19 AM
I wonder what the opinion of the "Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia" would be towards restoring the reading of the Old Testament in the Divine Liturgy. This was discontinued in the 8th c. I believe so St. John Chrysostom would have read the OT in  Divine liturgies he celebrated I presume.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on June 13, 2011, 08:22:20 AM
I wonder what the opinion of the "Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia" would be towards restoring the reading of the Old Testament in the Divine Liturgy. This was discontinued in the 8th c. I believe so St. John Chrysostom would have read the OT in  Divine liturgies he celebrated I presume.

Why change what works perfectly at present? The OT is read at Matins in preparation for the Divine Liturgy. I hope you're not serious!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Alpo on June 13, 2011, 08:37:49 AM
I have NEVER heard of a New calendar Church that even includes the Litany of the Catechumens, much less actually dismiss them ...

I have never heard of a New nor Old calendar church that actually dismisses the Catechumens or anyone else for that matter but the Litany of the Catechumens is most certainly part of Finnish liturgies.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: recent convert on June 13, 2011, 08:40:40 AM
I wonder what the opinion of the "Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia" would be towards restoring the reading of the Old Testament in the Divine Liturgy. This was discontinued in the 8th c. I believe so St. John Chrysostom would have read the OT in  Divine liturgies he celebrated I presume.

Why change what works perfectly at present? The OT is read at Matins in preparation for the Divine Liturgy. I hope you're not serious!
Why? This was part of ancient tradition. This will probably never happen but what would be the problem of having an OT reading restored alongside the epistle & the Gospel?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2011, 09:16:55 AM
I have NEVER heard of a New calendar Church that even includes the Litany of the Catechumens, much less actually dismiss them ...

I have never heard of a New nor Old calendar church that actually dismisses the Catechumens or anyone else for that matter but the Litany of the Catechumens is most certainly part of Finnish liturgies.
And at our Monastery under the Oecumenical Patriarchate. So that's three New Calendar Churches that do it.  Perhaps mwoerl needs to mix in a few wider circles?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Iconodule on June 13, 2011, 09:20:19 AM
I also may add that, at least in the U.S., I have NEVER heard of a New calendar Church that even includes the Litany of the Catechumens, much less actually dismiss them ...


Well, you cannot say that anymore because I attest that in my "New Calendar" OCA church our priest has never skipped over the Litany of the Cathechumens, to include the concluding prayer and their dismissal.

My OCA church also has the litany and the "catechumens depart!" at the end.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Agabus on June 13, 2011, 11:14:36 AM
I also may add that, at least in the U.S., I have NEVER heard of a New calendar Church that even includes the Litany of the Catechumens, much less actually dismiss them ...
???

While I have never seen catechumen ushered to the door, both of the churches I have regularly attended have the litany, and one of them included the traditional "let all catechumen depart."
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: podkarpatska on June 13, 2011, 11:32:09 AM
The Patriarch of Constantinople has conclebrated the Liturgy-in Rome-with the Pope-on several occasions ...
No he hasn't.
Next.

Technically he probably has.  He has celebrated the Liturgy of the Word at Mass with the Pope. 
Ah yes, the liturgy of the word, after which he departed while the Mass continued with the Liturgy of the Eucharist (the same point at which we dismiss the unbaptised catechumens). You mean that "liturgy"?

Touche!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: podkarpatska on June 13, 2011, 11:37:19 AM
"But against the spiritual weapons of Christ's warriors, the evil one gathered all the forces of the world's first satanist regime. The interdiction of Metropolitan Sergius were the sign for the Soviet Political Police to arrest and banish the protesting bishops; even many who attended Sergius' own "legal" churches were not spared by the authorities, and the chief result of the policy of "Sergianism"—to quote the words, born of bitter experience used forty years later inside the USSR by Boris Talantov—was that "Metropolitan Sergius' actions saved nothing except his own skin." A dark night in expiatory suffering settled upon the Russian land and faithful."

from St. Joseph of Petrograd and the Beginning of the Catacomb Church by I.M. Andreyev
found at ROCOR History blog http://rocorhistory.blogspot.com/2008/11/im-andreyev-st-joseph-of-petrograd.html (http://rocorhistory.blogspot.com/2008/11/im-andreyev-st-joseph-of-petrograd.html)

As I said, nothing new here that is going to change any minds. They same argument has been going about for the past eighty years or so.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on June 13, 2011, 11:44:24 AM
"But against the spiritual weapons of Christ's warriors, the evil one gathered all the forces of the world's first satanist regime. The interdiction of Metropolitan Sergius were the sign for the Soviet Political Police to arrest and banish the protesting bishops; even many who attended Sergius' own "legal" churches were not spared by the authorities, and the chief result of the policy of "Sergianism"—to quote the words, born of bitter experience used forty years later inside the USSR by Boris Talantov—was that "Metropolitan Sergius' actions saved nothing except his own skin." A dark night in expiatory suffering settled upon the Russian land and faithful."

from St. Joseph of Petrograd and the Beginning of the Catacomb Church by I.M. Andreyev
found at ROCOR History blog http://rocorhistory.blogspot.com/2008/11/im-andreyev-st-joseph-of-petrograd.html (http://rocorhistory.blogspot.com/2008/11/im-andreyev-st-joseph-of-petrograd.html)

As I said, nothing new here that is going to change any minds. They same argument has been going about for the past eighty years or so.

And you are absolutely correct, for the past eighty years or so there has been no significant change in Russia and the MP.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: podkarpatska on June 13, 2011, 11:50:40 AM
"But against the spiritual weapons of Christ's warriors, the evil one gathered all the forces of the world's first satanist regime. The interdiction of Metropolitan Sergius were the sign for the Soviet Political Police to arrest and banish the protesting bishops; even many who attended Sergius' own "legal" churches were not spared by the authorities, and the chief result of the policy of "Sergianism"—to quote the words, born of bitter experience used forty years later inside the USSR by Boris Talantov—was that "Metropolitan Sergius' actions saved nothing except his own skin." A dark night in expiatory suffering settled upon the Russian land and faithful."

from St. Joseph of Petrograd and the Beginning of the Catacomb Church by I.M. Andreyev
found at ROCOR History blog http://rocorhistory.blogspot.com/2008/11/im-andreyev-st-joseph-of-petrograd.html (http://rocorhistory.blogspot.com/2008/11/im-andreyev-st-joseph-of-petrograd.html)

As I said, nothing new here that is going to change any minds. They same argument has been going about for the past eighty years or so.

And you are absolutely correct, for the past eighty years or so there has been no significant change in Russia and the MP.

Hmmm..While one may argue, and quite properly, that the military and industrial classes of Russia are more interested in preserving hegemony and oligarchy, I can't agree with you about the state of the Church in post-Soviet Russia.

Look, I disagree with you about many, many important issues, but I would never presume to judge you on the sincerity or depth of your faith.

What I perceive from your words and those of your fellow communicant here is that you do extend us the same respect. So be it, but at least admit this if I am correct. If I am in error, then please try to change the tone and tenor of your writing so as to convince me and others of this.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on June 13, 2011, 12:06:55 PM
I am, by training a pastoral counselor, not a historian nor a researcher. This means I am not about to scour the internet for the articles I've read. But I recall reading in Russian online press where the MP backed CIS govt have persecuted, arrested and seized the properties of ROCOR (Agafangel) if I'm not so senile at 53.  The relationship between the MP/Russia is not so very different than the MP/Soviets. There is no separation of church-state like in the West.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: mike on June 13, 2011, 12:45:48 PM
I have NEVER heard of a New calendar Church that even includes the Litany of the Catechumens,

Mine does.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: recent convert on June 13, 2011, 01:03:40 PM
I have NEVER heard of a New calendar Church that even includes the Litany of the Catechumens,

Mine does.
I attended an OCA parish that used this litany in the DL also & we  include this with the Lenten pre Sanctified Liturgy in the Antiochian Church (N.A.).
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Fr.Aidan on June 13, 2011, 01:34:46 PM
According to Bishop Jerome, a liturgics expert, linguist, and past valedictorian of Holy Trinity Seminary, the number of ancient Christian rites (among the various Eastern and Western rites of the historic Orthodox Church) which had an Old Testament reading at the Liturgy, was small by comparison with those which had simply an epistle and a gospel. There is zero evidence that the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom ever included an Old Testament (prophetical) reading.

Regarding the partial concelebration between the Pope and the Green Patriarch, we have to be careful before condemning with too broad a brush. For example, St. Tikhon the New Confessor often went to services in heterodox churches early in the 20th century, and he would wear vestments, and he would give a blessing to the congregation, and would sometimes give the sermon. But I do not think he was of the belief that Orthodoxy and Otherdoxy are really the same deep down.

So we have to always ask, "Did this new calendarist hierarch concelebrate in a way that St. Tikhon did, or in a way exceeding the bounds of what St. Tikhon, a man of God, did?" Until one is sure about that, one is advised not to bandy about all manner of slurs.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: mike on June 13, 2011, 02:57:01 PM
So we have to always ask, "Did this new calendarist hierarch concelebrate in a way that St. Tikhon did, or in a way exceeding the bounds of what St. Tikhon, a man of God, did?" Until one is sure about that, one is advised not to bandy about all manner of slurs.

Is St. Tikhon an Orthodox oracle? He could bee wrong sometimes too.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: podkarpatska on June 13, 2011, 03:03:59 PM
I am, by training a pastoral counselor, not a historian nor a researcher. This means I am not about to scour the internet for the articles I've read. But I recall reading in Russian online press where the MP backed CIS govt have persecuted, arrested and seized the properties of ROCOR (Agafangel) if I'm not so senile at 53.  The relationship between the MP/Russia is not so very different than the MP/Soviets. There is no separation of church-state like in the West.

No there is not, but neither is there such in Greece and elsewhere in both western, central and eastern Europe.  This issue will get you a whole new argument from some on these pages! The concept of state favored or a state established religion has been debated here at length and my position against such favoritism is well documented here.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Alpo on June 13, 2011, 03:44:49 PM
So we have to always ask, "Did this new calendarist hierarch concelebrate in a way that St. Tikhon did, or in a way exceeding the bounds of what St. Tikhon, a man of God, did?" Until one is sure about that, one is advised not to bandy about all manner of slurs.

Is St. Tikhon an Orthodox oracle? He could bee wrong sometimes too.

Saints aren't infallible but it is good to know how different saints approached different issues. Since Orthodoxy is not an abstract construction made on basis of literature but a living experience I believe saints who have actually achieved holiness tend to know better than those us who "know" these things from books and websites. I'd say it's rather humbling to know that there is at least one saint who had more irenic approach to the heterodox.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: yeshuaisiam on June 13, 2011, 04:14:10 PM
Ever wonder if on the top of these things the real problem is MONEY. 
Just saying.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: mwoerl on June 13, 2011, 04:28:17 PM
And at our Monastery under the Oecumenical Patriarchate. So that's three New Calendar Churches that do it.  Perhaps mwoerl needs to mix in a few wider circles?

I was speaking in reference to the US ... I would love to 'mix' in a few wider circles, instead of all the running around them here ... and ... the Finnish Orthodox Church, eh? Is that a circle you mix in Ozman?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 13, 2011, 04:36:46 PM
The Patriarch of Constantinople has conclebrated the Liturgy-in Rome-with the Pope-on several occasions ...
No he hasn't.
Next.

Technically he probably has.  He has celebrated the Liturgy of the Word at Mass with the Pope.  

Ah yes, the liturgy of the word, after which he departed while the Mass continued with the Liturgy of the Eucharist (the same point at which we dismiss the unbaptised catechumens). You mean that "liturgy"?


Of course he doesn't in fact depart.  He sits at the right hand side of the Altar just a couple of yards from the Pope.  At the ending of the Mass he pops back into the liturgical action again and administers a joint blessing with the Pope to conclude the Eucharist.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2011, 07:18:28 PM
I was speaking in reference to the US ... I would love to 'mix' in a few wider circles, instead of all the running around them here ... and ... the Finnish Orthodox Church, eh? Is that a circle you mix in Ozman?
Well, I talk to a member of the Finnish Orthodox Church who posts here mwoelwoman (I decided not to be sexist by assuming that you're a man).
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Agabus on June 13, 2011, 10:21:21 PM
And at our Monastery under the Oecumenical Patriarchate. So that's three New Calendar Churches that do it.  Perhaps mwoerl needs to mix in a few wider circles?

I was speaking in reference to the US ... I would love to 'mix' in a few wider circles, instead of all the running around them here ... and ... the Finnish Orthodox Church, eh? Is that a circle you mix in Ozman?
My experience(s) with the liturgy of the catechumens was in the OCA Diocese of the South and the Antiochian Diocese of Miami and the Southeast. Both are clearly in the U.S. and both are very much in the mainstream of U.S. Orthodoxy.

I cannot speak for the Greeks, but those represent two of the three largest jurisdictions -- all New Calendar -- in the U.S. You can criticize New Calendar churches for many things, but the assertion that you "...have NEVER heard of a New calendar Church that even includes the Litany of the Catechumens" means that you have either been misled or were never actively listening.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ialmisry on June 14, 2011, 12:18:08 AM
The Spirit is descended!
I am, by training a pastoral counselor, not a historian nor a researcher. This means I am not about to scour the internet for the articles I've read. But I recall reading in Russian online press where the MP backed CIS govt have persecuted, arrested and seized the properties of ROCOR (Agafangel) if I'm not so senile at 53.  The relationship between the MP/Russia is not so very different than the MP/Soviets. There is no separation of church-state like in the West.
Was there under the Basileus and the Czar?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: ialmisry on June 14, 2011, 12:20:58 AM
The Spirit is descended!
I also may add that, at least in the U.S., I have NEVER heard of a New calendar Church that even includes the Litany of the Catechumens, much less actually dismiss them ...
You in the U.S., and never heard of the OCA?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: recent convert on June 14, 2011, 10:40:12 AM
According to Bishop Jerome, a liturgics expert, linguist, and past valedictorian of Holy Trinity Seminary, the number of ancient Christian rites (among the various Eastern and Western rites of the historic Orthodox Church) which had an Old Testament reading at the Liturgy, was small by comparison with those which had simply an epistle and a gospel. There is zero evidence that the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom ever included an Old Testament (prophetical) reading.

Regarding the partial concelebration between the Pope and the Green Patriarch, we have to be careful before condemning with too broad a brush. For example, St. Tikhon the New Confessor often went to services in heterodox churches early in the 20th century, and he would wear vestments, and he would give a blessing to the congregation, and would sometimes give the sermon. But I do not think he was of the belief that Orthodoxy and Otherdoxy are really the same deep down.

So we have to always ask, "Did this new calendarist hierarch concelebrate in a way that St. Tikhon did, or in a way exceeding the bounds of what St. Tikhon, a man of God, did?" Until one is sure about that, one is advised not to bandy about all manner of slurs.

Re the Old Testament readings in the liturgy: I have found in the scholarship of Hugh Wybrew, Yiannis Vitaliotis, & Fr Lawrence Farley that the reading of one of the prophets was considered standard in sequence to the epistle and Gospel in the time of St. John Chrysostom. Apparently there must be differing perspectives on how widespread this was?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Fr.Aidan on June 15, 2011, 05:19:06 PM
I get the impression that, regarding early usages on the number and type of readings at the Liturgy or Mass, scholars back-engineered their conclusions; that is, that they looked at the rites which have Old Testament readings in them, and those which don't, and concluded that very likely the Old Testatment readings were originally present in most rites, but then later dropped out as rites were shortened. However, another hypothesis is that the Old Testament readings were added to the rites which have them, not subtracted from the ones which don't.

If there is any primary evidence for Old Testament readings in ancient times across the board, from Eastern rite to Eastern rite, and from Western rite to Western rite, (the Roman rite is a partial example, but has such readings only in the Nativity season), I'd sure like to see it. I have not found any majority pattern thus far.

And one more thing which can confuse the liturgical scholar: It is very common for ancient commentators on the Eastern and Western rites to refer to the "reading from the Old Testament" when what they intend by this, is to refer to the Prokeimenon (in Eastern rite) or the Graduale or Responsoriale (in Western rite). However, those aren't full-fledged readings, in the sense of true scriptural pericopes, although they are Old Testament texts done aloud.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on June 15, 2011, 05:37:29 PM
I get the impression that, regarding early usages on the number and type of readings at the Liturgy or Mass, scholars back-engineered their conclusions; that is, that they looked at the rites which have Old Testament readings in them, and those who don't, and concluded that very likely the Old Testatment readings were originally present in most rites, but then later dropped out as rites were shortened. However, another hypothesis is that the Old Testament readings were added to the rites which have them, not subtracted from the ones which don't.

If there is any primary evidence for Old Testament readings in Chrysostom or any other major Eastern or Western Liturgy, as a standard or majority dynamic across regionary rites, I'd sure like to see it. I have not found any thus far.

And one more thing which can confuse the liturgical scholar: It is very common for ancient commentators on the Eastern and Western rites to refer to the reading from the Old Testament when all they intend, is to refer to the Prokeimenon (in Eastern rite) or the Graduale or Responsoriale (in Western rite). However, those aren't full-fledged readings, in the sense of true scriptural pericopes, although they are Old Testament texts done aloud.


How do scholars treat the three psalms that are chanted during Divine Liturgy in Slavic practice? I am referring to the psalms appointed for ordinary Sundays: first antiphon (Psalm 102), second antiphon (Psalm 145) and the post-communion hymn (Psalm 33).
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Fr.Aidan on June 15, 2011, 05:53:07 PM
They treat them very badly. Very badly indeed.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: josephgodleski1966 on September 12, 2011, 08:35:35 PM
sorry but  this fr john lobue i know  him for years  his church was founded by fr francis brothers  who at one time was under the russian patrairch  then  left after a short time not wanting be demoted to be a mitered  monk then he died in the 1970's  and a bishop mc cormick ran the church up until his death  and he passed the reigns of leadership tohis junior  fr lobue who was just  ordained a few years earlier by mccormick   the headquaters of this church is  runned out of a hunting lodge  they owns  in west milford nj and in the 80's the church  was called  the synod of orthodox bishops of the western rite and  then  in the  early 90's they got involved with the so called  patriarch  of kiev  church  they stayed a bit and realized his was a fraud and left his  church then  got involved in the synod of the milan  who now they  have broken  off commuion  with   so now  they are a self isolated  jurisdiction on a junk yard  property  with a half finished  church a broken down falling apart  house with 3 clergy man living thier and  a nun  who lives in a trailer on the property with a bunch of cats and has a tv  and she  lives in the winter months on the couch of the living room  in the same house as the 3 male clergy  as with a bunch of cats  the place smells of cat and dog  waste this fr lobue has a natty hair style looks like dread locks  torn cassock and the so called 31 churches are home churches other then the west milford nj and woodstock ny  property the autonomous orthodox  synod of the americas and british isles have no real  physical churches  oh did i mention  fr lobue  owns a tv  if you want to see if these people are on the level  just visit them and talk to them in   west milford the condition of their  so called new york new jersey  diocese and how they act  and talk shows they are not really monks or clergy just a bunch of people  playing dress up  and playing church
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Asteriktos on September 12, 2011, 08:43:58 PM
sorry but  this fr john lobue i know  him for years  his church was founded by fr francis brothers  who at one time was under the russian patrairch  the left after a short time not wanting to be a mitered  monk the he died and a bishop mc cormick ran the church who ordained this  fr lobue in the 1970's they owned this  hunting bungalow in west milford nj and in the 80's they changed thier name to the synod of orthodox bishops of the western rite  the in the 90's they got involved with the fake patriarch  of kiev currently they are a self isolated  jurisdiction on a junk yard  property with a half finished  church a broken down house with 3 clergy man living thier  a nun  who lives in a trailer and has a tv  and lives in the winter months on the couch of the living room right near in the same house as the 3 male clergy  as with a bunch of cats  the place smells of cat and dog  waste this fr lobue has a natty hair style looks like dread locks  torn cassock and the so called 31 churches are home churches other then the west milford  and woodstock ny  property the autonomous orthodox  synod of the americas and british isles have no real  physical churches  oh did i mention  fr lobue  owns a tv  if you want to see if these people are on the level  just visit  west milford the condition of their  so called ny nj headquarters  prove they are just a bunch of people dressing up and playing church

Woh, a TV? That's some serious #$%^!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Fr.Aidan on September 12, 2011, 09:11:57 PM
I disagree with the severely isolationist stance of the Metropolia in West Milford. However, living in dilapidated buildings, or having unkempt hair, or having a rip in your cassock, is not cause for thinking less of anyone. How many saints have lived in filth! How many saints have had unkempt, matted hair, and dripping, untreated sores, and tattered clothing barely identifiable as "clothing," and smelled like urine and feces! Through their prayers may God have mercy on our cold, hard souls.

Having a television does not even begin to compare with canonical bishops who have run prostitution rings, threatened people with guns, or have physically assaulted clergy--never mind all their beautiful cathedrals, overflowing bank accounts, perfectly-pressed clothes, and immaculate grooming.

So let's concentrate on Orthodox standards, and not judge others' souls by standards of our own creation.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Iconodule on September 12, 2011, 09:24:12 PM
fr lobue has a natty hair style looks like dread locks

Don't even try to keep down the Rastaman.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: searn77 on September 12, 2011, 10:22:40 PM
then  got involved in the synod of the milan  who now they  have broken  off commuion  with

Just to clear this part of your post up, it's more correct to say that the Synod of Milan broke communion with us & now they have become isolated as they are in communion with no one. The American Metropolia still maintains communion with all/most (I'm pretty sure all but I'm not 100% positive) of the TOC synods that the Synod of Milan was in communion  with right before they broke communion with all of us in an attempt to enter into communion with the Moscow Patriarchate.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: josephgodleski1966 on September 12, 2011, 11:09:44 PM
dear fr aiden  well you are correct about appearence but a church who changes name 4 times  thats not a bit strange  they started out as the old  catholic church in america  then the orthodox bishops of the western rite  and then under the ukrainian  patrairchal church  and now the autonomos orthodox metropoltia of the americas and the british isles  and what about  father  francis brothers who strated the original church in 1913  a very strange   person with a very  unorthodox  beliefs and  background when it comes  possioning a  truely vaild   ordaination it is questionable   and what do we know of that bishop mccormick  was he also a bishop with uncannonical  ordaination  and the patrairch of kiev who  elevated fr lobue to archbishop was his credentials vaild to do so and  what about the greek metropolitan  in milan  was did he have the right to make fr lobue a metropolitan  if not then fr lobue is really a  priest with false credentials  acting like a metropolitan but not  having the right to call oneselve a bishop  this makes  him a  man  dreesing up and acting like  and running a  church and what about those  who he ordains are they true ordaination or false ones since the  people  do not go to a seminary training does fr lobue even require  that all canidates  for the prietshood  have a  college education  deacons  do not need a college  education  but a priest  should have a 4 yr degree  and then the 3 yr seminary  training
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on September 12, 2011, 11:11:40 PM
sorry but  this fr john lobue i know  him for years  his church was founded by fr francis brothers  who at one time was under the russian patrairch  then  left after a short time not wanting be demoted to be a mitered  monk then he died in the 1970's  and a bishop mc cormick ran the church up until his death  and he passed the reigns of leadership tohis junior  fr lobue who was just  ordained a few years earlier by mccormick   the headquaters of this church is  runned out of a hunting lodge  they owns  in west milford nj and in the 80's the church  was called  the synod of orthodox bishops of the western rite and  then  in the  early 90's they got involved with the so called  patriarch  of kiev  church  they stayed a bit and realized his was a fraud and left his  church then  got involved in the synod of the milan  who now they  have broken  off commuion  with   so now  they are a self isolated  jurisdiction on a junk yard  property  with a half finished  church a broken down falling apart  house with 3 clergy man living thier and  a nun  who lives in a trailer on the property with a bunch of cats and has a tv  and she  lives in the winter months on the couch of the living room  in the same house as the 3 male clergy  as with a bunch of cats  the place smells of cat and dog  waste this fr lobue has a natty hair style looks like dread locks  torn cassock and the so called 31 churches are home churches other then the west milford nj and woodstock ny  property the autonomous orthodox  synod of the americas and british isles have no real  physical churches  oh did i mention  fr lobue  owns a tv  if you want to see if these people are on the level  just visit them and talk to them in   west milford the condition of their  so called new york new jersey  diocese and how they act  and talk shows they are not really monks or clergy just a bunch of people  playing dress up  and playing church

I've had enough.

Godlessky, you are right.

Is it comfortable there in the winter? Not at all! How can it be with the drafts! (Forget your winter pilgrimage). It is on a mountain, and far from your nearest Quickie-mart and 7-Eleven. And let me go even further! The power goes out there at least twice a winter! The monks can be completely snowed in! Bears occasionally wander the premises! There's a fireplace-- THAT'S BROKEN! No hi-speed internet for guests in this monastery, either.

But why stop there? Let's let it all out! The monks follow that nasty Western custom of eating FOWL! And during fast days they don't eat till evening! And they fight over food! And with the exception of Vl John's episcopal visits, they only go get to go to the supermarket, the doctor, and out to eat occasionally! "Community involvement"? GET REAL! Most of the community doesn't even know these people are trapped there because they're up on that mountain! Flyers? Advertisements? Absolutely not. These people are obviously a drain on society, and contribute nothing. And no one even knows! Not even Jehovah's Witnesses can get to them!

And let me tell you about this weird teaching that Metropolitan John has that I've finally gotten over after reading Godlessky's post-- he told people that "suffering" is actually the "Christian life". Really? Yep. Suffering. Freaky, isn't it? And a "personal cross", like we're supposed to be Jesus or something. And that's how he keeps these oddballs in line, before they can get wise and find a real monastery instead of freezing their posteriors off in that nasty house. That's why the pets get such good food. And that's the best part of this whole ridiculous thing: he says that the world is supposed to "hate" us. SICK! It's like being in a cult! Like it's "us" against "them". Isn't this totally against the point of Jesus coming? Didn't he come to save us all!? It's all a big setup to keep us from getting what makes us happy in life.

I especially agree with this part:

Quote
if you want to see if these people are on the level  just visit them and talk to them in   west milford the condition of their  so called new york new jersey  diocese and how they act  and talk

I agree completely. Make a determination yourself.  There's something wrong up there on that monastery. VERY wrong. But you have to see it to believe it! Just watch out if you come during a non-fast period-- those "meatballs" are made of turkey. I can even confirm the rest. Are there cats there? Yes. An old house in need of repairs? Ditto. A torn cassock? Indeed. No great halls, no frescoes on the ceiling. Perhaps even holes on the ceiling.

Thanks, Fr Ambrose, for putting this on the Paradosis list for the world to see. I never would have known, and it opened my eyes. It is a "junkyard" there, and I need to focus on what God wants for me-- which is some good money, recognition, and maybe I can join a jurisdiction with a quality health care plan. I'm sick of this poor people stuff! I deserve more. (For crying out loud, I wrote four books! How come I can't write for Regina Press? I want my shot on Ancient Faith Radio!)

But is the faith preserved and are the offices performed? Sure, the monks will spend long hours doing the offices in full, as they were done in the Orthodox West 900 years ago. But who cares? This place sucks!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on September 12, 2011, 11:12:25 PM
sorry but  this [  ] i know ... 

you poor soul. I will pray for you.

monk Symeon
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: josephgodleski1966 on September 13, 2011, 02:22:22 AM
subdeacon you can make light of this  but i find the things i  made claim to be important
 the fact that why a nun would be allowed to stay in a house with male monastic  that sounds  orthodox  to you  try asking  the monastery in jordanville ny  if they would have a  nun live in a cell next to a male monk and see what they would say about that  also i pointed out  the fact  the people who  elevated fr john lobue  have questionable  origins of their ordaination and for them being qualified to ordain others  which affects if fr john  has the authority  to ordain others  but you feel subdeacon to  use humor to mask over these facts is the best answer to things well i hope  when you and fr lobue get to the white throne judgement seat  tht god  has the same sense of humor that you have  and the  fact that fr lobue  teaches many  sound doctrines that the rest of orthodoxy teaches   does not excuse if his ordaination are irregular and  not vaild in the eyes of the rest of the orthodox world  nor his  attacking  cannonical orthodox churches   and say they have no grace and saying they are non orthodox because he holds to a  rigid interpetation of orthodoxy christianity  is like us comparing moderate islam to extremist islam  groups and making the case  that the extremist  islamist are correct because they make a better arguement for thier side
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on September 13, 2011, 02:46:22 AM
subdeacon you can make light of this  but i find the things i  made claim to be important

I am a deacon. You are a propagandist. If you capitalize nothing and add no periods, I am not convinced you are a bad speller. You are using a technique.

Quote
the fact that why a nun would be allowed to stay in a house with male monastic  that sounds  orthodox  to you  try asking  the monastery in jordanville ny  if they would have a  nun live in a cell next to a male monk and see what they would say about that

This is stupid. The trailer has no working heater. It has been broken for a few years and there is no money to fix it. If you really know us, you knew that, and decided to hide it on this forum. (Donations and assistance-- without conditions-- are graciously accepted, with our love and prayers.) Obviously, you haven't offered help to fix it; you'd know they want that help. No with the wherewithal one wishes to give it, without certain "conditions". But don't worry. We are working on making changes to the finances so that we can finally take care of needed repairs. But the alternative is letting an old nun freeze to death. And she isn't near any cells, but the reception area (the main salon, living room, what you wish to call it).

Quote
also i pointed out  the fact  the people who  elevated fr john lobue  have questionable  origins of their ordaination and for them being qualified to ordain others  which

...don't matter, as their orders were corrected almost two decades ago.....

Quote
nor his  attacking  cannonical orthodox churches   and say they have no grace and saying they are non orthodox because he holds to a  rigid interpetation of orthodoxy christianity

He didn't say that. If you had read our clergy confession (http://www.orthodoxmetropolia.org/2011/03/text-of-confession-of-faith-to-be.html), you will see that one can say there is grace in World Orthodoxy. What we must conclude, as does St Augustine, however, is that IF there IS grace, it condemns the World Orthodox further because of their uncanonical dalliance and friendship with heresy, damning them further still for their actions. There is no "healthy part" of World Orthodoxy, unless that grace is getting people to leave. Things are very dangerous in World Orthodoxy, and if the best you've got to point at us is a freezing nun we've got nothing to fear.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 13, 2011, 03:08:54 AM

I am a deacon.

But whose deacon are you?  You are not Christ's because you fight to destroy the Church


He didn't say that. If you had read our clergy confession (http://www.orthodoxmetropolia.org/2011/03/text-of-confession-of-faith-to-be.html), you will see that one can say there is grace in World Orthodoxy.

I see that the latest version still asserts that we, the clergy and faithful of the ancient Patrarchates, are the representatives of Satan

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on September 13, 2011, 03:17:25 AM
But whose deacon are you?  You are not Christ's because you fight to destroy the Church

Why? Because a proud representative of the murderers of millions of Orthodox Christians says so? I guess our Lord Stalin hasn't approved of my ordination?

I see that the latest version still asserts that we, the clergy and faithful of the ancient Patrarchates, are the representatives of Satan

If you think your advertising of public mockery of an elderly nun who has no heater because we are poor and we don't want her to freeze to death should be displayed on the Internet, then we don't need a clergy statement to figure out whose representative you are.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 13, 2011, 03:38:44 AM
But whose deacon are you?  You are not Christ's because you fight to destroy the Church

Why? Because a proud representative of the murderers of millions of Orthodox Christians says so? I guess our Lord Stalin hasn't approved of my ordination?


Weren't you given your American autonomy by a Stalinist clergyman, Klaus Hessler (now Metropolitan Eulogios) who was ordained by the Soviets and was a loyal Soviet priest for 13 years?

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on September 13, 2011, 03:44:55 AM
Weren't you given your American autonomy by a Stalinist clergyman, Klaus Hessler (now Metropolitan Eulogios) who was ordained by the Soviets and was a loyal Soviet priest for 13 years?

Well, our understanding is that he left the Soviet Church. (If you have a KGB archive on his actual clearance, actions, et cetera, like we do on your "Patriarchs" and many "Bishops", we'd be glad to see it.) He operated as though he was independent of Moscow-- and I believe that is true. When his perspective (or his "handlers" like Bp Abundius) changed and pushed for communion towards Moscow, the True Orthodox Churches (in Greece, Russia, the former CIS, et cetera) with which we were mutually in communion confirmed our autonomy after Milan violently broke communion with us all.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: josephgodleski1966 on September 13, 2011, 11:51:17 AM
subdeacon i do not mock a elderly nun or that she should freeze to death i  have known the problems and poverty living conditions they face i have know the clergy of  monastery of the abbey of the holy name for 18 years plus and i knew them  before they got involved with the ukrainian patrairch of kiev  when they were still  called the synod of orthodox bishops of the western rite and comprised of the  st hilarion monastery  in austin tx  abbey of the holy name  in west milford nj and the chapel in woodstock ny and 4 churches in serbia  and  why i commented was because i saw   irish hernit comments  asking why the  people in your autonomous orthodox metropolitia of the americas  and the british isles    are refering to the russian patrairch as satan and you attack others in the orthodox church  i have heard from fr lobue own mouth  critize the oca church  the greek orthodox church  the antiochen orthodox church the romanian orthodox church  the moscow church and why  rocor wanted to  reunite  with the mother church of moscow this synod under fr lobue only accepts the crazy   schismactic orthodox   who have no vaild ordaination like themselves
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Iconodule on September 13, 2011, 11:59:55 AM
no subdeacon i do not mock a elderly nun or that she should freeze to death i  have known the problems and poverty living conditions they face i have know the clergy of  monastery of the abbey of the holy name for 18 years plus and i knew them  before they got involved with the ukrainian patrairch of kiev  when they were still  called the synod of orthodox bishops of the western rite and comprised of the  monastery in austin tx  holy name monastery in west milford nj and the chapel in woodstock ny and 4 churches in serbia  and i know by what i was told  by people in the monastery  that fr lobue was approached over the years to sell  the surrounding land to the twp of west milford  a offer to sell all the land  and a offer to have the monastery to get paid to put up a cell tower on the land  all these offers would have fixed  their finacial problems but fr lobue refused  them and rather stay in finacial dispair  i have suggested that fr lobue should have taken the twp deal and sell 20 of the 25 acres and use the money  to  knock down the huners lodge put up a new home  and complete the chapel and build sister helena a frame home and use the rest of the money  to keep the monastery running  i also know that fr lobue had a good computer job in nyc  and that the computer field has changed and that job  was no longer availible so they live hand to mouth and please do not say i do not care because i tried over the years to try to help them at the monastery by giving them suggestions to help them to get out of their mess  but they do not wi9sh to help themseves  so after a while  you stop caring  that is why i stoped visiting them to not see the dispair and poverty they choose to live in that old saying fits here  god helps those who help themselves in not  a biblical saying but does fit for the sitution and why i commented was because i saw   irish hernit  asking why the  people in your autonomous orthodox metropolitia of the americas  and the british isles    are refering to the russian patrairch as satan and you attack others i have heard from fr lobue own mouth  critize the oca  the greek orthodox the antiochen the romanian  rocor for reuniting with moscow  your church likes to atack all  the orthodox churches  you only like  the crazy breakaway schismactics who hold no vaild  ordaination like yourselves
i am glad and i  welcome  the metropolitan of milan and his churches who wish to be part of the cannonical rthodox once again  

I really don't understand why you think poverty for monastics is so unacceptable. What would you say to hermits living in huts, caves, or trees? Maybe he didn't sell the land because he found something more important there than money.

Also, please use punctuation and capital letters in any subsequent posts.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FrAugustineFetter on September 13, 2011, 12:34:14 PM
I was trying to post something, but, apparently it didn't go through.

I remember Joseph from when he visited. Always asking question and moving to different churches, which is not a bad thing, but, not the best thing to begin trying to give people absolute advice about their finances.  But, since he at least, seemed interested, I took him for sincere.

1.  The cell phone tower example you posit is not at all how it 'went down', to use a phrase.  To put a cell phone tower on the propery, it was necessary for Verizon to have the permission of our neighbors, since the road that comes up the mountain is 80% there, and thus, our land intersects.  If the tower had been placed up here, it would have been financially 'good' and the road would have been paved (though, I honestly think, in retrospect, that no tower was a good idea, since I think there is some issue in reality to the em radiation of cell phones and cell phone tower and brain cancer, but, I digress).  However, the neighbors protested, saying that such a tower would lower their property values, or be unsightly, or something to that effect.  Thus, since the company needed their aquiesence in the matter, it would closed with the neighbors refusal.

2.  Selling land here is not easy.  As you may not know, but, I do, since I live here, and help handle the finances, the matter of our land is in dispute, that is, there is a boundary dispute with our neighbors.  And, if you didn't know, hiring a land surveyor isn't cheap, and it isn't cheap in corrupt old NJ.  How does a base bill of $5,000 dollars sound? Expensive isn't it.  But, that's what the 'town says' needs to happen, with all their fees added.  And, then, there is no gurantee the surveyor will come to any clear conclusions (don't you love these crony systems, "We needs an extral 2,000 dollars, yous knows, to makes sure everythings is fines!!").  And then guess what, we still have to pay the 10,000 dollar land tax we owe on the 20 acres even if the surveyor comes to a proper conclusion, at least the tax for that year.  But, wait, we're out 5,000 dollars (if not more in 'fees' and other 'costs') with the surveyor and the town; then we can't pay the land tax.  You know what happens then?  The land automatically goes on auction, and they don't notify you when it happens (or, atleast, if they do, they don't actually do it).  That's actually happened once before, with a similar situation. 
And to add on to all this, it has become almost near impossible (or very difficult) to sell land in NJ in certain areas (especially like ours, with all the forests and lakes near us), due to the misguided passage of the "Highlands Act" by the General Assembly of the State of NJ. 
I view all this as a scam perpetuated by the generally corrupt state and the cronies that run it and their friends (and anyone who has had to deal with the towns around here knows about corruption).

And I think Iconodule brought up an excellent point, maybe there is something else you didn't see (and of course, I pointed out 2 issues above that you completely failed to understand, or forgot, or whatever).

And for people who don't live with constantly having to wonder where and how they are going to deal with all these situations, and then having to deal with medical bills and other bills, and having to administer people spiritually, and all the rest, I'm sure to those people it seems like it should be smooth sailing! That is, until you run into reality about how finances work, and how people act, and then you find out that the best laid plans go awry and maybe God is telling you that you should be poor and suffer so you can then have at least a little sympathy and compassion without criticism of the struggles of others.
Like I was saying on another list somewhere, as bad as any of us may have, there are people who are far worse; poor in America is rich in Africa,etc., or something to that effect.

-Fr. Augustine
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: primuspilus on September 13, 2011, 12:56:19 PM
ok so i tried to make heads or tails of this milan thing. Could someone spell it out? i am really confused...

PP
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FrAugustineFetter on September 13, 2011, 01:08:22 PM
First it was about a break in communion with Milan.

Then it moved to people upset that we are poor and don't do enough not to be poor.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: josephgodleski1966 on September 14, 2011, 11:41:09 AM
yes  you do remember me from visiting  your monastery and yes i did try a few churches but i gave up trying to find the least ecumenicalist orthodox church but i still believe that all orthodox churches under scoba  should resign from  membership in the national and world council of churches  and i hold to the old calendar  obsevance over the gregorian calendar of the feast days and holy days of the church but saying that i do so and still  stay in commuion with the rest of the world bodies of cannonical orthodox  churches starting a new church because one  does not like what the church they currently belong  teaches   is basicaly the protestant solution to a problem  what your synod does not understand or want to accept is  if a priest or bishop is defrocked he can no longer act as such or ordain or perform the  duties of that office  which means  the autonomous orthodox metropiltia of the americas and the british isles and those in commuion wih  them are ordaining people without the apostolic authority of a cannonical bishop you can argue all the other points  
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FrAugustineFetter on September 14, 2011, 12:11:14 PM
I was only interested in correcting you misunderstanding of a financial situation and attempted attack on monastic poverty.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: josephgodleski1966 on September 14, 2011, 08:26:22 PM
okay so you clear up a misconception on your finacial sitution which i must have m heard wrong mistaken  from information i was told by those who are residents i apology for that  but i did attack you at all i only stated the condition in which  the current  monastery is in also i was told that in the works was consturction of a male and female monastery on the property in woodstock ny   where a chapel stands currently to replace the old monastery  that use to be thier when bishop francis brothers  had the headquaters  in woodstock ny up until the 1950's or 1960's
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: josephgodleski1966 on September 14, 2011, 10:19:51 PM
i thought  that bishop auxtios  or something like  that was the one that the milan synod  in europe get their  origins from
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2011, 12:07:09 AM
okay so you clear up a misconception on your finacial sitution which i must have m heard wrong mistaken  from information i was told by those who are residents i apology for that  but i did attack you at all i only stated the condition in which  the current  monastery is in also i was told that in the works was consturction of a male and female monastery on the property in woodstock ny   where a chapel stands currently to replace the old monastery  that use to be thier when bishop francis brothers  had the headquaters  in woodstock ny up until the 1950's or 1960's

Are there photos?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2011, 12:21:24 AM

a  drunk of a priest who lived in west milford monastery  he  left thier church and went back to canada and they have  a current priest who refuses to attend service in thier  church because he does not like the way fr  lobue conducts the services on the altar 

?????
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on September 15, 2011, 12:30:53 AM

a  drunk of a priest who lived in west milford monastery  he  left thier church and went back to canada and they have  a current priest who refuses to attend service in thier  church because he does not like the way fr  lobue conducts the services on the altar  

?????

Really? Is this necessary? Do I sit here throwing out ROCOR-MP's dirt or anyone else's for that matter, Fr Ambrose? (We know you're promoting this; it's not unreasonable to believe you're encouraging it.) Moderator please? This is just slander. Really.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2011, 12:51:55 AM

a  drunk of a priest who lived in west milford monastery  he  left thier church and went back to canada and they have  a current priest who refuses to attend service in thier  church because he does not like the way fr  lobue conducts the services on the altar  

?????

Really? Is this necessary? Do I sit here throwing out ROCOR-MP's dirt or anyone else's for that matter, Fr Ambrose? (We know you're promoting this; it's not unreasonable to believe you're encouraging it.) Moderator please? This is just slander. Really.

Posted by Joseph Godlesky, described as "i  have the pleasure of being good friends with  fr john lobue"

]
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2011, 12:57:26 AM

 Do I sit here throwing out ROCOR-MP's dirt


Try your own blog

Notes From the Underground
http://news-nftu.blogspot.com
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on September 15, 2011, 01:24:10 AM
There's a difference between actual news stories, public statements, and interesting gaffes and "that guy was a drunk and this nun lives in the lower floor in the winter because they're too poor to afford a heater"-- and you promoting it.

Seriously, this is just airing any dirty laundry you can find.  I haven't sat there revealing instances of homosexuality, et cetera. I am not a gossip monger.

And that's what I believe you are promoting, and if you can't see the difference between what we do at NFTU and what Godlesski is doing (and you are putting on email) lists, my belief is justified. Clearly you can't see the difference between uncomfortable news and old fashioned slander.

That's a sad place to be, and I hope the moderators know better.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on September 15, 2011, 01:28:33 AM
Posted by Joseph Godlesky, described as "i  have the pleasure of being good friends with  fr john lobue"

So if I say I'm good friends with your Metropolitan I can say whatever I want? Really?

This is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: josephgodleski1966 on September 15, 2011, 02:08:54 AM
i am sorry but i  just repeated what told to me by residents of the monastery  subdeacon  i cant help if the information  is true and makes your church  look bad in light of other orthodox churches 
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2011, 03:46:24 AM

There's a difference between actual news stories, public statements, and interesting gaffes and "that guy was a drunk and this nun lives in the lower floor in the winter because they're too poor to afford a heater"-- and you promoting it.


I was not "promoting it"  at all.  I was just curious who the current priest is "who refuses to attend service in thier  church because he does not like the way fr  lobue conducts the services on the altar."  That's all.

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 15, 2011, 03:53:58 AM
There's a difference between actual news stories, public statements, and interesting gaffes and "that guy was a drunk and this nun lives in the lower floor in the winter because they're too poor to afford a heater"-- and you promoting it.

Seriously, this is just airing any dirty laundry you can find.  I haven't sat there revealing instances of homosexuality, et cetera. I am not a gossip monger.

And that's what I believe you are promoting, and if you can't see the difference between what we do at NFTU and what Godlesski is doing (and you are putting on email) lists, my belief is justified. Clearly you can't see the difference between uncomfortable news and old fashioned slander.

That's a sad place to be, and I hope the moderators know better.
If you think we the moderators should take action against Irish Hermit for what he posted, why haven't you used the "Report to Moderator" function to report to us the post you found so offensive?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2011, 04:59:20 AM

a  drunk of a priest who lived in west milford monastery  he  left thier church and went back to canada and they have  a current priest who refuses to attend service in thier  church because he does not like the way fr  lobue conducts the services on the altar  

?????

Really? Is this necessary?



This was posted by Joseph Godlesky three months ago - http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29373.msg587022.html#msg587022 - but I  just read it. I  am curious about the priest in the West Milford monastery who refuses to attend services wth his Primate-abbot. I  believe that such a refusal would not be possible in other Churches. I am simply asking for information on a previous post.




Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on September 15, 2011, 09:15:55 AM
i am sorry but i  just repeated what told to me by residents of the monastery  subdeacon  i cant help if the information  is true and makes your church  look bad in light of other orthodox churches 

Only the ignorant and unwise would spew out such trash that their ears may have taken in.

monk Symeon
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2011, 09:41:05 AM
i am sorry but i  just repeated what told to me by residents of the monastery  subdeacon  i cant help if the information  is true and makes your church  look bad in light of other orthodox churches 

Only the ignorant and unwise would spew out such trash that their ears may have taken in.

monk Symeon

What are the liturgical (?) problems which make the current priest in the West Milford monastery refuse to attend services wth "fr  lobue"?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on September 15, 2011, 09:48:38 AM
i am sorry but i  just repeated what told to me by residents of the monastery  subdeacon  i cant help if the information  is true and makes your church  look bad in light of other orthodox churches 

Only the ignorant and unwise would spew out such trash that their ears may have taken in.

monk Symeon

What are the liturgical (?) problems which make the current priest in the West Milford monastery refuse to attend services wth "fr  lobue"?


There are no know problems as described. More importantly, how is it any of your business? This only proves Fr Joseph's point about you. And you've been doing this for many years now. We ought not be replying to you, we ought to be praying to God for you.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2011, 10:01:55 AM
What are the liturgical (?) problems which make the current priest in the West Milford monastery refuse to attend services wth "fr  lobue"?

There are no know problems as described. More importantly, how is it any of your business?


Huh??  You sweet people are quick to get into our business and declare us to be representatives of Satan

You declared war on Christ and the Church


Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on September 15, 2011, 10:09:00 AM
Huh??  You sweet people are quick to get into our business and declare us to be representatives of Satan You declared war on Christ and the Church

No, no! You have been after us since at least the late 90s!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2011, 10:18:09 AM
Huh??  You sweet people are quick to get into our business and declare us to be representatives of Satan You declared war on Christ and the Church

No, no! You have been after us since at least the late 90s!


Guilty!  Since American Milan was hijacked by narrow-minded isolationists

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on September 15, 2011, 10:22:00 AM
Huh??  You sweet people are quick to get into our business and declare us to be representatives of Satan You declared war on Christ and the Church

No, no! You have been after us since at least the late 90s!


Guilty!  Since American Milan was hijacked by narrow-minded isolationists

If it is uncanonical for a ruling bishop to interfere in the business of another diocese or jurisdiction, surely it is inappropriate for a mere hieromonk to do the same!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2011, 10:37:32 AM
quote author=PapaSymeon link=topic=34986.msg638759#msg638759 date=1316096520]
Huh??  You sweet people are quick to get into our business and declare us to be representatives of Satan You declared war on Christ and the Church

No, no! You have been after us since at least the late 90s!


Guilty!  Since American Milan was hijacked by narrow-minded isolationists
Quote

If it is uncanonical for a ruling bishop to interfere in the business of another diocese or jurisdiction,

Such as your Primate declaring my Patriarch and Metropolitan to be servants of Satan?

Quote

surely it is inappropriate for a mere hieromonk to do the same!

But you are not a Church, you are not a diocese, you are outside the Church, you term the Church Satanic
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2011, 10:49:59 AM
Huh??  You sweet people are quick to get into our business and declare us to be representatives of Satan You declared war on Christ and the Church

No, no! You have been after us since at least the late 90s!


Guilty!  Since American Milan was hijacked by narrow-minded isolationists

If it is uncanonical for a ruling bishop to interfere in the business of another diocese or jurisdiction,

I believe that my bishop has now received 9 of your priests, so clearly his conscience is at ease about this
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on September 15, 2011, 11:04:30 AM
But you are not a Church, you are not a diocese, you are outside the Church, you term the Church Satanic

One last question before I try to ignore your unChristianly attitude: According to your definition (since you don't see us as a Church) there are so many more non-Orthodox, non-Christians even right outside you front door. Go convert them!

There is a standard if sinfulness ("missing the mark") if one's actions falls within such a standard one then is thus guilty of same. Those who engage in ecumenism, sergianism etc. are so guilty and therefore serving Satan's desire against the Body of Christ.  No one needs to call anyone "servants of Satan" one's own actions reveal that! Has Patr Alexy & Patr Kyrill not supported ecumenism (which ROCOR historically was against) or collaborated with & allowed herself to be used by the current rulers in Russia?  You don't need to answer or justify the MP. Let her speak for herself.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on September 15, 2011, 11:09:13 AM
Quote from: PapaSymeon:
If it is uncanonical for a ruling bishop to interfere in the business of another diocese or jurisdiction,

Quote from: Irish Hermit:
I believe that my bishop has now received 9 of your priests, so clearly his conscience is at ease about this

Not the same when he is approached by others asking to be received under his omophorion. You on the other hand is an agitator.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: josephgodleski1966 on September 15, 2011, 01:30:22 PM
okay ask fr john lobue  what was the story  about the  old russian orthodox priest named theodore who lived at the monastery  for the last 7 months of his life  in 1996  and why some sort of sainthood is placed upon this priest by your synod and   why this  web site  comes up with his name as accused of sexual misconduct  

http://pokrov.org/display.asp?ds=Sanctioned&id=78&sType=Persons


this is the meaning of the word

Sanctioned
The Orthodox Church has its own system for disciplining both abusive individuals and those who engage in sexual misconduct, that is, behavior which is inconsistent with the teachings of Orthodoxy on sexuality.  

Spiritual courts do not operate according to the same principals and procedures as American criminal justice.  Nevertheless, these courts have their own set of standards and are a time honored method for determining moral guilt.  Accordingly, we include information about those individuals who have been sanctioned in spiritual court for abuse or for misconduct.

We have also included in this section those Orthodox who were accused in spiritual court of abuse or misconduct but who refused to submit themselves to the court.  In those cases, the individual has been sanctioned for disobedience, with no decision rendered on the underlying charges.  Obviously, this means that the spiritual court did not make a determination concerning moral guilt.  

Please read each file carefully to determine whether the individual was sanctioned for abuse, for sexual misconduct or for disobedience.

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on September 15, 2011, 03:01:52 PM
There's a difference between actual news stories, public statements, and interesting gaffes and "that guy was a drunk and this nun lives in the lower floor in the winter because they're too poor to afford a heater"-- and you promoting it.

Seriously, this is just airing any dirty laundry you can find.  I haven't sat there revealing instances of homosexuality, et cetera. I am not a gossip monger.

And that's what I believe you are promoting, and if you can't see the difference between what we do at NFTU and what Godlesski is doing (and you are putting on email) lists, my belief is justified. Clearly you can't see the difference between uncomfortable news and old fashioned slander.

That's a sad place to be, and I hope the moderators know better.
If you think we the moderators should take action against Irish Hermit for what he posted, why haven't you used the "Report to Moderator" function to report to us the post you found so offensive?

Honestly? I never noticed it. Edit: Maybe ages ago, but I don't think I remembered it here, so I figured I'd call for the moderator like on e-lists.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on September 15, 2011, 03:03:53 PM

I was not "promoting it"  at all.  I was just curious who the current priest is "who refuses to attend service in thier  church because he does not like the way fr  lobue conducts the services on the altar."  That's all.

You posted the freezing nun thread on Paradosis with some flippant comment about the "Patriarch's" opinion on our Synod.

Obviously nothing of the sort was true. Just trash.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on September 15, 2011, 03:17:31 PM
okay ask fr john lobue  what was the story  about the  old russian orthodox priest named theodore who lived at the monastery  for the last 7 months of his life  in 1996  and why some sort of sainthood is placed upon this priest by your synod and   why this  web site  comes up with his name as accused of sexual misconduct  

http://pokrov.org/display.asp?ds=Sanctioned&id=78&sType=Persons

So what was the nature of the actual charge? A lot of people both in and out of our Synod venerate the man's memory.

Wait, let me guess. You have to go look it up. Because you don't know, you are just looking for more you can find on our Synod.

I am surprised your eager-beaver attitude on our Church's corruption hasn't led to a discussion on Bp Abundius of the Milan Synod, who of course Fr Ambrose was pleased to expose until he realized he was one of the main negotiators between Milan and Moscow.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on September 15, 2011, 03:18:36 PM
There's a difference between actual news stories, public statements, and interesting gaffes and "that guy was a drunk and this nun lives in the lower floor in the winter because they're too poor to afford a heater"-- and you promoting it.

Seriously, this is just airing any dirty laundry you can find.  I haven't sat there revealing instances of homosexuality, et cetera. I am not a gossip monger.

And that's what I believe you are promoting, and if you can't see the difference between what we do at NFTU and what Godlesski is doing (and you are putting on email) lists, my belief is justified. Clearly you can't see the difference between uncomfortable news and old fashioned slander.

That's a sad place to be, and I hope the moderators know better.
If you think we the moderators should take action against Irish Hermit for what he posted, why haven't you used the "Report to Moderator" function to report to us the post you found so offensive?

Honestly? I never noticed it. Edit: Maybe ages ago, but I don't think I remembered it here, so I figured I'd call for the moderator like on e-lists.

Edit 2: ok!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on September 15, 2011, 03:26:00 PM
What are the liturgical (?) problems which make the current priest in the West Milford monastery refuse to attend services wth "fr  lobue"?

There are no know problems as described. More importantly, how is it any of your business?


Huh??  You sweet people are quick to get into our business and declare us to be representatives of Satan

You declared war on Christ and the Church

War? Really? Let's get something straight. You are not the Church. You are schismatics from the Church.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: primuspilus on September 15, 2011, 03:59:20 PM
What are the liturgical (?) problems which make the current priest in the West Milford monastery refuse to attend services wth "fr  lobue"?

There are no know problems as described. More importantly, how is it any of your business?


Huh??  You sweet people are quick to get into our business and declare us to be representatives of Satan

You declared war on Christ and the Church

War? Really? Let's get something straight. You are not the Church. You are schismatics from the Church.
So says you.

PP
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on September 15, 2011, 05:10:16 PM
So says you.

PP

And so says you otherwise!

My point is that who is and isn't the Church is a different question than whether it's morally permissible to try to publicly embarrass people through the mention of their poverty, or personal lives of members on line. Regardless of who is and isn't the schismatic body, one must presume that both parties are claiming to be Orthodox, and Orthodoxy does not allow this sort of slanderous behavior one way or the other. Correctness, whether yours or mine, does not justify evil behavior towards another party in the name of "war". The commandments of the Church don't become inapplicable because "oh, it's just those people".

This is, oddly enough, an aspect of Sergianism; the murders of millions of Orthodox Christians were justified due to their being "enemies of the state".
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on September 15, 2011, 05:39:51 PM
If it is uncanonical for a ruling bishop to interfere in the business of another diocese or jurisdiction, surely it is inappropriate for a mere hieromonk to do the same!

Benedicite:

The simple reality is that the ROCOR-MP officially does not recognize us as a diocese or jurisdiction. It is therefore perfectly consistent for them to attempt to take our members (I for one am more offended by their use of subterfuge and deception in doing so than anything else). It is also perfectly consistent for us to do the same to theirs. It is inconsistent, therefore, to apply the canons towards their actions as though they are to be treated as equal members of the Church. Certainly, the fact of our officially pretty much ceasing to do so is riling them up. They had a pretty good thing going in the past with our official position being unclear: we train them, and then they seduce them with officialdom and steal them. Now that our policy is consistent, the chances of that continuing are considerably lower.

It should also be taken into account that there are at least 3 ROCOR jurisdictions which ceased communion with the ROCOR-MP because joining it to the MP would make it part of a schismatic body. Consistency would require us to work harder to dialogue with them, because frankly discussions with World Orthodoxy have done us absolutely no good whatsoever. In fact, the opposite is true: all 9 of the clergy who have left in the past 8 years have done so because they had an unclear position about the membership of the Church-- had such a confession been in place even a few years ago, perhaps we would have seen a lower number of defections, or at the least new clergy joining would have understood clearly the True Orthodox position on the official churches.

In short, discussions of canonical behavior would actually have merit with the remaining part of the ROCOR that has not joined the Patriarchate, since they still follow the canons consistently. It is our task in these days to work with True Orthodox throughout the world, as we have seen that such a position produces real fruit. We have lost nine priests in 8 years, and have gained a million new Christians and hundreds of new clergy in our sacred communion in one year, throughout the world.

It is clear which path God blesses, and which one He hates.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: LBK on September 15, 2011, 05:44:07 PM
Quote
It should also be taken into account that there are at least 3 ROCOR jurisdictions which ceased communion with the ROCOR-MP because joining it to the MP would make it part of a schismatic body.

... and none of these three "jurisdictions" recognise each other. Ah, the spirit of schism ....
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on September 15, 2011, 06:33:24 PM
Quote
It should also be taken into account that there are at least 3 ROCOR jurisdictions which ceased communion with the ROCOR-MP because joining it to the MP would make it part of a schismatic body.

... and none of these three "jurisdictions" recognise each other. Ah, the spirit of schism ....

Actually, that's a nice word thrown around, but discounts the actual history of schism. In most cases, schism occurs with the assistance of the state, which often violently attacks the Orthodox. In some cases, it is actually state-sponsored and most of the time they devolve into heresy.

True Orthodoxy simply has to wait out the innovators and the True Orthodox need to work together to resolve the causes of division between them, as they have historically done rather slowly.

But a lot of people (I can't say most, since the numbers don't bear out the claim) figure they've got the most buildings, usually with state help, so they don't really give a whit about canons or tradition. They just like their "officialness" and stuff. Kind of a waste of time to discuss though, if you think three Russian jurisdictions with a virtually identical confession of faith and similar origins not recognizing each other in a time of global apostasy is the "spirit of schism".
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2011, 06:38:45 PM

One last question before I try to ignore your unChristianly attitude:


And your Primate stating  that I and my Metropolitan are servants of Satan is Christian??   ::)
 
Quote
According to your definition (since you don't see us as a Church) there are so many more non-Orthodox, non-Christians even right outside you front door. Go convert them!


I have been doing that for 30 years. Want to swap numbers of converts?  ;D
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Suaiden on September 15, 2011, 06:53:20 PM

One last question before I try to ignore your unChristianly attitude:


And your Primate stating  that I and my Metropolitan are servants of Satan is Christian??   ::)

Our Lord did say "Let your yes be yes and your no be no".

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2011, 07:01:53 PM

You posted the freezing nun thread on Paradosis


Posted only a link to OC.net

Commented:
"Sent this so that MAB people are able to respond on OC.net"

Obviously it worked  :laugh:
 


with some flippant comment about the "Patriarch's" opinion on our Synod.

Obviously nothing of the sort was true. Just trash.

 "Patriarch of Moscow" was what Joseph had in his sidebar at the time
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2011, 07:12:20 PM

Bp Abundius of the Milan Synod, who of course Fr Ambrose was pleased to expose until he realized he was one of the main negotiators between Milan and Moscow.

Still oppose him.  Does Russia want "bishops" ousted by the Romanians for homosexuality and active in Italy in the porn industry?


  Irish Hermit, you are being Moderated for 30 days, for bypassing a lock on another thread.  Moving a conversation from a locked thread to an open thread is never appropriate.  Things are locked for a reason, and circumventing that and the processes on OCNET is never "alright".

Along with this Moderation, you are officially being asked to substantiate any and all potentially* libelous accusation against Bp. Abundius, or submit to being muted/having your time on post moderation doubled.  You have until Wednesday, September 21st by noon (12:00, EST) to submit your proofs to the moderator of this Board (SecondChance).

- Serb1389. 

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: serb1389 on September 15, 2011, 07:20:19 PM
  Ok this has gone on far enough.  I'm locking this thread until the Moderators figure out what to do with this salata.  I hope you ALL take the upcoming break to think about what you are saying here and how you are treating each other, and even other people. 

-Serb1389. 
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: smithakd on September 15, 2011, 11:02:46 PM
(http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/4282/necropost.jpg)
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Asteriktos on September 15, 2011, 11:05:56 PM
i thought  that bishop auxtios  or something like  that was the one that the milan synod  in europe get their  origins from

what is your story joseph i am relatively sure you are a native english speaker yet you talk in one long line like this and jumble everything together what exactly are you trying to do please answer me if you feel so inclined thank you

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2011, 11:32:01 PM

a priest who lived in west milford monastery  he  left thier church and went back to canada and they have  a current priest who refuses to attend service in thier  church because he does not like the way fr  lobue conducts the services on the altar


What are the problems with services?

(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnpmod.gif) Irish Hermit, you are being Moderated for 30 days, for bypassing a lock on another thread.  Moving a conversation from a locked thread to an open thread is never appropriate.  Things are locked for a reason, and circumventing that and the processes on OCNET is never "alright". 

Along with this Moderation, you are officially being asked to substantiate any and all potentially* libelous accusation against Bp. Abundius, or submit to being muted/having your time on post moderation doubled.  You have until Wednesday, September 21st by noon (12:00, EST) to submit your proofs to the moderator of this Board (SecondChance). 

- Serb1389. 
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Irish Hermit on September 15, 2011, 11:40:13 PM

Moscow-Milan talks

Almost one year on and no word of the Moscow-Milan talks.  Were they ever for real?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 16, 2011, 03:53:47 PM

a priest who lived in west milford monastery  he  left thier church and went back to canada and they have  a current priest who refuses to attend service in thier  church because he does not like the way fr  lobue conducts the services on the altar


What are the problems with services?

You asked this question on a thread that is now locked. Why are you asking the question again here?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Iconodule on September 16, 2011, 04:00:26 PM
'Cause that thread's locked?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RSt51Xca1E
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 16, 2011, 06:10:00 PM
This topic has been moved to Purgatory.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: serb1389 on September 17, 2011, 03:43:33 PM
This topic has been moved back from Purgatory, back into RT. 

We have Placed Irish Hermit on Post Moderation for bypassing the lock on the other Milan thread. 

We are also Requiring him to substantiate his potentially* libelous accusation against Bp. Abundius, or submit to being muted/having his time on post moderation doubled.  This same request will be made to any and all slanderous claims made against anyone, vigilante or not. 

At this time we will not Assess penalties against anyone else. 

HOWEVER.  Be warned that ANY AND ALL further discussion on the Milan Synod will be locked until Irish Hermit has submitted the proof of his claims to SecondChance, per his moderation, in the time allotted. 

Any violation of this lock will be dealt with swiftly, and with the utmost response. 

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: serb1389 on September 18, 2011, 09:11:30 PM

a priest who lived in west milford monastery  he  left thier church and went back to canada and they have  a current priest who refuses to attend service in thier  church because he does not like the way fr  lobue conducts the services on the altar


What are the problems with services?

(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnpmod.gif) Irish Hermit, you are being Moderated for 30 days, for bypassing a lock on another thread.  Moving a conversation from a locked thread to an open thread is never appropriate.  Things are locked for a reason, and circumventing that and the processes on OCNET is never "alright". 

Along with this Moderation, you are officially being asked to substantiate any and all potentially* libelous accusation against Bp. Abundius, or submit to being muted/having your time on post moderation doubled.  You have until Wednesday, September 21st by noon (12:00, EST) to submit your proofs to the moderator of this Board (SecondChance). 

- Serb1389. 


Bp Abundius of the Milan Synod, who of course Fr Ambrose was pleased to expose until he realized he was one of the main negotiators between Milan and Moscow.

Still oppose him.  Does Russia want "bishops" ousted by the Romanians for homosexuality and active in Italy in the porn industry?


  Irish Hermit, you are being Moderated for 30 days, for bypassing a lock on another thread.  Moving a conversation from a locked thread to an open thread is never appropriate.  Things are locked for a reason, and circumventing that and the processes on OCNET is never "alright".

Along with this Moderation, you are officially being asked to substantiate any and all potentially* libelous accusation against Bp. Abundius, or submit to being muted/having your time on post moderation doubled.  You have until Wednesday, September 21st by noon (12:00, EST) to submit your proofs to the moderator of this Board (SecondChance).

- Serb1389. 

This topic has been moved back from Purgatory, back into RT. 

We have Placed Irish Hermit on Post Moderation for bypassing the lock on the other Milan thread. 

We are also Requiring him to substantiate his potentially* libelous accusation against Bp. Abundius, or submit to being muted/having his time on post moderation doubled.  This same request will be made to any and all slanderous claims made against anyone, vigilante or not. 

At this time we will not Assess penalties against anyone else. 

HOWEVER.  Be warned that ANY AND ALL further discussion on the Milan Synod will be locked until Irish Hermit has submitted the proof of his claims to SecondChance, per his moderation, in the time allotted. 

Any violation of this lock will be dealt with swiftly, and with the utmost response. 



 In the spirit of transparency I wanted to mention that all submissions of proof have been offered to PetertheAleut because of a typo on my part.  I did not notice that SecondChance was the moderator of this board, and accidentally put PetertheAleut in that spot originally.  After realizing my omission I went back & changed the official request to reflect SecondChance as the official moderator.  However, the wheel had already been set in motion.  At this point, if there are submission, they could go to either PetertheAleut, or SecondChance.  All of the moderators are working equally on this project until we have resolutions to the above requests. 

Please forgive me for any inconveniences to any of you. 

-Serb1389. 
Title: Re: Milan says Goodbye to its American sector
Post by: josephgodleski1966 on September 20, 2011, 05:53:45 AM
okay so  my concern is  does anyone really know the origins of this  church  which is headed by fr  john lobue  or the  fact that in 1914  bishop  willian francis  brothers a colorful  and  controversal old catholic prelate started the original church as the old catholic church in america  which   in the early 1960's bishop brothers  took   his jurisdcition under the protection and    commuion of  the moscow patriarchal church for a few  years and assumed the title of mitered monk which he did not like and left commuion with the mp church    the problem is fr lobue and other clergy in  his synod    seem to think that no one is still alive or remembers   bishop brothers  this  is untrue thier are  2  russian orthodox priests in thier early 80's who were young priests at the time  and   remember when   bishop brothers of woodstock ny  came into commuion with the mp church  and know the story why he   departed  their  church  in such a short time   bishop brothers died  in the 1970's  then  bishop joseph mccormick led the church   he ordained a former jesuit priest named fr john lobue  when  bishop mccormick died  fr lobue took over and he then   led the  church out  of the confusion of  old catholicism which he  should be comended for   towards  a more eastern orthodox postion in theology and beliefs    fr lobue  changed  the churches  name  to the synod of orthodox bishops of the western rite which  by  1984  consisted of the west milford abbey and the chapel in  woodstock ny and a few  parishes in america and 4 parishes in  yugoslavia  then later on  bishop hilarion of austin become  a  bishop  of the synod of orthodox bishops of the western rite  then  in the 1990's the church become associated with patrirach  fileret the so called  patrairch of kiev who in reality  was a demoted bishop  of  the mp church to the title of  miterd monk  before being defrocked by the same  church  when  fr lobue  found out the  controversy   of filerets church  they left commuion with  this church   and went solo for a while to later join   the milan  jurisdiction founded by the greek metropolitan  eveghois who was a former clergy  of the greek old calendar church  led by a bishop auxtios which as a side note a few  old calendar greeks jurisdictions in recent years  have rejoined  the ep church  especialy  the old calendar group located in queens ny which has  the chapel of the  miracules weeping icon of st irene  also on the subject of the american milan synod   having a  vaild mass    i was told by a  antiochen orthodox priest that the sarum mass is incomplete and that those who use it  are pretty much  making up as they go along  to fill in the  parts of the manuscript that are missing because no  one has a fully intact copy of the  sarum mass  also i know  subdeacon will discount any past associations  of his church  and its founder   bishop brothers  that since they renounced any bad thelogy that he held in  the church from the begining  that  his name and assciation  have no bearing on the present church but that is not true his being the founder of this church and  his  irregualr  ordaination  puts in question  his claims as holding true apostolic succesion and those passed down  the line to suceed him  the churches history also comes into question and  past association with other so called orthodox  jurisdictions    not to metion fr lobue current   isolationist  postion of  thinking that all orthodox churches that dont hold to his  non ecuemicalist and old calendar postion are not true  orthoox churches and hold no grace in them this    is dangerous  and not healthy  postion to hold and very unorthodox and why many orthodox churches discount any claims this church makes as being a vaild and cannonical orthodox church
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnwarn.gif)
You surely have to have seen this message, http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,34970.msg639933.html#msg639933 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,34970.msg639933.html#msg639933) on the now locked Milan thread. Also, plain old common sense will tell you that it's never appropriate to go around the lock on a thread and resume the discussion somewhere else. For bypassing the lock on a locked thread, you are receiving this warning to last for the next 30 days. If you think this action wrong, please appeal it via private message to Fr. George and/or Veniamin.

- PeterTheAleut
Title: Re: Milan says Goodbye to its American sector
Post by: Suaiden on September 20, 2011, 12:24:01 PM
Really? Again?

okay so  my concern is  does anyone really know the origins of this  church  which is headed by fr  john lobue  or the  fact that in 1914  bishop  willian francis  brothers a colorful  and  controversal old catholic prelate started the original church as the old catholic church in america  which   in the early 1960's bishop brothers  took   his jurisdcition under the protection and    commuion of  the moscow patriarchal church for a few  years and assumed the title of mitered monk which he did not like and left commuion with the mp church    the problem is fr lobue and other clergy in  his synod    seem to think that no one is still alive or remembers   bishop brothers  this  is untrue thier are  2  russian orthodox priests in thier early 80's who were young priests at the time  and   remember when   bishop brothers of woodstock ny  came into commuion with the mp church  and know the story why he   departed  their  church  in such a short time   bishop brothers died  in the 1970's  then  bishop joseph mccormick led the church   he ordained a former jesuit priest named fr john lobue  when  bishop mccormick died  fr lobue took over and he then   led the  church out  of the confusion of  old catholicism which he  should be comended for   towards  a more eastern orthodox postion in theology and beliefs    fr lobue  changed  the churches  name  to the synod of orthodox bishops of the western rite which  by  1984  consisted of the west milford abbey and the chapel in  woodstock ny and a few  parishes in america and 4 parishes in  yugoslavia  

No one denies any of this.

Quote
then later on  bishop hilarion of austin become  a  bishop  of the synod of orthodox bishops of the western rite  then  in the 1990's the church become associated with patrirach  fileret the so called  patrairch of kiev who in reality  was a demoted bishop  of  the mp church to the title of  miterd monk  before being defrocked by the same  church  when  fr lobue  found out the  controversy   of filerets church  they left commuion with  this church   and went solo for a while to later join   the milan  jurisdiction founded by the greek metropolitan  eveghois who was a former clergy  of the greek old calendar church  led by a bishop auxtios

You have this backwards. The Americans joined the Milan Synod just as the short-lived communion with the KP (on the part of the Milan Synod) was almost ended. This is getting repetitive and starting to look a little like grafitti.

Quote
which as a side note a few  old calendar greeks jurisdictions in recent years  have rejoined  the ep church  especialy  the old calendar group located in queens ny which has  the chapel of the  miracules weeping icon of st irene  also on the subject of the american milan synod   having a  vaild mass    i was told by a  antiochen orthodox priest that the sarum mass is incomplete and that those who use it  are pretty much  making up as they go along  to fill in the  parts of the manuscript that are missing because no  one has a fully intact copy of the  sarum mass  

A) That's not true. Anyone who reviews the 20,000 pages or so of translations we've done can see that (http://orthodoxengland.blogspot.com).
B) Ironically, a Sarum service is almost twice as long as an Antiochian WR service. How exactly then is it more incomplete than either of the Antiochian Western Rites?

Quote
also i know  subdeacon will discount any past associations  of his church  and its founder   bishop brothers  that since they renounced any bad thelogy that he held in  the church from the begining  that  his name and assciation  have no bearing on the present church but that is not true his being the founder of this church and  his  irregualr  ordaination  puts in question  his claims as holding true apostolic succesion and those passed down  the line to suceed him  the churches history also comes into question and  past association with other so called orthodox  jurisdictions

Again: Obviously you've either never heard of chierothesia, or don't believe it, so this is pointless. I would try to explain it, but as you've allegedly "called me out" for denying it, clearly you are not interested in the simple truth of the matter, but repeating a lie.

Quote
  not to metion fr lobue current   isolationist  postion of  thinking that all orthodox churches that dont hold to his  non ecuemicalist and old calendar postion are not true  orthoox churches and hold no grace in them this    is dangerous  and not healthy  postion to hold and very unorthodox and why many orthodox churches discount any claims this church makes as being a vaild and cannonical orthodox church

Obviously you have no intention of giving up and repeating untruths and distortions in a really weird manner. I've referred you to our public confession. What's really left for us to do? You started this new discussion with a bunch of untrue statements and personal attacks that eventually led to the shutting down of forum discussion on our Synod. Since you were answered on it, you've tried this.

Your intent seems to be, in your own sort of creepy way, to cause confusion about our Church. What did we ever do to you?
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnpmod.gif)
Just as josephgodleski1966's act of taking this discussion to another location to circumvent the lock on a thread is violation of forum rules and of common sense, so also is your act of engaging the discussion he resumed. Therefore, you are receiving the same discipline I gave him: a formal warning to last for 30 days. Additionally, since you have a history of similar rules violations on our forum (which Mr. Godleski does not have), your warning is being escalated to post moderation. If you think this action wrong, feel free to appeal if via private message to either Fr. George or Veniamin.

- PeterTheAleut
Title: Re: Milan says Goodbye to its American sector
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 20, 2011, 01:39:15 PM
After further review, this thread will remain locked.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on September 21, 2011, 10:33:03 PM
By the decision of the Moderatorial Team:

1. All discussion on this subject must be confined to this thread. Also, please do not open another thread on this subject anywhere else.

2. As Irish Hermit did not substantiate his accusations against Bishop Abundius by the deadline given to him, his post moderation is increased from 30 days to 60 days.

3. This thread is now unlocked.

Thank you, Second Chance
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: josephgodleski1966 on September 22, 2011, 10:16:00 AM
i heard 6  priests defected from the american sector of the milan synod with 3 more possible  defections   we must pray  harder that  more priests come home to the truth and leave the gripes of fr lobue and the  orthodox metropolitia of the americas and the british isles
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: josephgodleski1966 on September 22, 2011, 10:40:19 AM
this of course we be not a hard thing for those priest who leave  the autonomous orthodox  metropolia of the americas and the british isles  since the majority of the parishes are home churches  so the priest would probadly have to submit to start as a deacon or subdeacon and then be a priest  when thier irregular ordanation is corrected by a cannonical orthodox  bishop
at present i only know that west milford nj  and woodstock are the only  physical  church properties in this synod  st hilarion monastery in austin tx  use to have a chapel on it but i heard they sold the property  and i do not know anything about the bishop they have attached in lincoln nebraska if any of his parishes are actual  church  buildings or all house churches
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnpmod.gif) 30 days of moderation for bypassing that decision (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,34158.msg642167.html#msg642167) - Michał Kalina
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Asteriktos on September 22, 2011, 10:50:26 AM
Sometimes I wonder how many of these "true" & "traditionalist" groupings that often use the terms "world Orthodoxy" & "anathema" often even have any laity.

If you want a good laugh regarding traditionalists trying to spin numbers to make themselves look better, try this show (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/nftu/2011/01/28/how-much-bigger-is-official-orthodoxy-anyway). My two favorite parts were 1) when they said that traditionalists make up ~10% of the Orthodox (I guess math wasn't their strong suit in school), and 2) when they repeatedly said that you could probably find a traditionalist parish just about anywhere that you could find a world Orthodox parish. Good times.
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnwarn.gif) 10 days of warning for bypassing that decision (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,34158.msg642167.html#msg642167) - Michał Kalina
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: mike on September 22, 2011, 11:57:04 AM
The thread is locked. Discuss Milan Synod issues there and ONLY there (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,34158).
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: primuspilus on September 22, 2011, 01:44:59 PM
Ok, i'll bite. So this Milan synod, is it, or has it ever been canonical in the way we would think?

If not, why not? Please make it simple...remember Im not cradle.

PP
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on September 22, 2011, 03:24:28 PM
Ok, i'll bite. So this Milan synod, is it, or has it ever been canonical in the way we would think?

If not, why not? Please make it simple...remember Im not cradle.

PP

If you believe in the canonical reality of the Old Calendar Church of Greece from the (pre-MP union) ROCOR then you believe that Milan Synod is canonical.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: primuspilus on September 22, 2011, 04:03:45 PM
Ok, i'll bite. So this Milan synod, is it, or has it ever been canonical in the way we would think?

If not, why not? Please make it simple...remember Im not cradle.

PP

If you believe in the canonical reality of the Old Calendar Church of Greece from the (pre-MP union) ROCOR then you believe that Milan Synod is canonical.
So I take it concerning the church at large thats a resounding no....

PP
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: smithakd on September 22, 2011, 05:33:20 PM
Ok, i'll bite. So this Milan synod, is it, or has it ever been canonical in the way we would think?

If not, why not? Please make it simple...remember Im not cradle.

PP

If you believe in the canonical reality of the Old Calendar Church of Greece from the (pre-MP union) ROCOR then you believe that Milan Synod is canonical.
So I take it concerning the church at large thats a resounding no....

PP

Correct.  Or, put another way: Milan Synod, as a group, has never been in communion with your listed jurisdiction (the Antiochian Archdiocese), her patriarch, or anyone in communion with said patriarch.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Fr.Aidan on September 22, 2011, 05:39:31 PM
If someone will define what "canonical" means for him, I can say whether the Milan Synod fits that definition.

Otherwise, it's complex and "canonical" has a lot of differing meanings.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on September 22, 2011, 06:34:58 PM
"Official", "Canonical"
There is no such thing, of course, as a "canonical" Orthodox jurisdiction, despite the fact that this kind of terminology has crept into our ecclesiological vocabulary from the West. Nor are there "official" Orthodox Churches, a category produced by the contemporary ecumenical movement. Were this so, and were such terms amenable to the nuanced ecclesiological notions of the Greek Fathers, we would have to concede that the Cappadocian Fathers, the Studite monks, and the Palamite Hesychasts were, in some way, "quasi-canonical" and "un-official." This, if nothing else, warns us against apologetic presentations which unwisely pass over the intricacies of Church history.

—Archbishbop Chrysostomos of Etna, in a review of Fr. Alexander Webster's The Price of Prophecy (Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XIV, No. 2&3, p. 71)

Since the "World Orthodox" follow trends of ecumenism, syncretism and neo-Sergianism or any other contradiction to patristic Holy Tradition and Canons they have fallen "ill" and have become separated in their relation to the Body of Christ. It is in the same sense that when an Orthodox person sins he has set himself outside the Church until he is reconciled through repentance and the Mystery of Confession. So too is the human elements ("jurisdictions") we too often call The Church.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Iconodule on September 22, 2011, 06:39:00 PM
"Official", "Canonical"
There is no such thing, of course, as a "canonical" Orthodox jurisdiction, despite the fact that this kind of terminology has crept into our ecclesiological vocabulary from the West. Nor are there "official" Orthodox Churches, a category produced by the contemporary ecumenical movement. Were this so, and were such terms amenable to the nuanced ecclesiological notions of the Greek Fathers, we would have to concede that the Cappadocian Fathers, the Studite monks, and the Palamite Hesychasts were, in some way, "quasi-canonical" and "un-official." This, if nothing else, warns us against apologetic presentations which unwisely pass over the intricacies of Church history.

—Archbishbop Chrysostomos of Etna, in a review of Fr. Alexander Webster's The Price of Prophecy (Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XIV, No. 2&3, p. 71)

Since the "World Orthodox" follow trends of ecumenism, syncretism and neo-Sergianism or any other contradiction to patristic Holy Tradition and Canons they have fallen "ill" and have become separated in their relation to the Body of Christ. It is in the same sense that when an Orthodox person sins he has set himself outside the Church until he is reconciled through repentance and the Mystery of Confession. So too is the human elements ("jurisdictions") we too often call The Church.

So why aren't you in communion with Archbishop Chrysostomos? Who got ill and fell away from whom?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Fr.Aidan on September 22, 2011, 06:41:24 PM
The evidence does not bear out this claim: "... the 'World Orthodox' follow trends of ecumenism, syncretism, and neo-Sergianism..."

Since 1970, and especially since the year 2000, the trend in World Orthodoxy is less ecumenism, less syncretism, and less neo-Sergianism. Sergianism has been repudiated by the Moscow Patriarchate. The Phanar has issued strongly anti-ecumenist statements. Syncretism is on the out-and-out.

Thanks be to God!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on September 22, 2011, 06:43:22 PM
"Official", "Canonical"
There is no such thing, of course, as a "canonical" Orthodox jurisdiction, despite the fact that this kind of terminology has crept into our ecclesiological vocabulary from the West. Nor are there "official" Orthodox Churches, a category produced by the contemporary ecumenical movement. Were this so, and were such terms amenable to the nuanced ecclesiological notions of the Greek Fathers, we would have to concede that the Cappadocian Fathers, the Studite monks, and the Palamite Hesychasts were, in some way, "quasi-canonical" and "un-official." This, if nothing else, warns us against apologetic presentations which unwisely pass over the intricacies of Church history.

—Archbishbop Chrysostomos of Etna, in a review of Fr. Alexander Webster's The Price of Prophecy (Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XIV, No. 2&3, p. 71)

Since the "World Orthodox" follow trends of ecumenism, syncretism and neo-Sergianism or any other contradiction to patristic Holy Tradition and Canons they have fallen "ill" and have become separated in their relation to the Body of Christ. It is in the same sense that when an Orthodox person sins he has set himself outside the Church until he is reconciled through repentance and the Mystery of Confession. So too is the human elements ("jurisdictions") we too often call The Church.

So why aren't you in communion with Archbishop Chrysostomos? Who got ill and fell away from whom?

In my opinion based upon my understanding Abp Cyprian's founding his own synod (unlike several others) was an illegitimate act thus it is nothing more than a parasynagogue. The standard of Orthodoxy falls equally upon all TOC/GOC as well as "World Orthodox".
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on September 22, 2011, 06:48:32 PM
The evidence does not bear out this claim: "... the 'World Orthodox' follow trends of ecumenism, syncretism, and neo-Sergianism..."

Since 1970, and especially since the year 2000, the trend in World Orthodoxy is less ecumenism, less syncretism, and less neo-Sergianism. Sergianism has been repudiated by the Moscow Patriarchate. The Phanar has issued strongly anti-ecumenist statements. Syncretism is on the out-and-out.

Thanks be to God!

Pontifications are worthless while their actions are contrary. Just search the net one will find it replete with news articles and photos of World Orthodox hierarchs & clergy praying and worshipping with non-Orthodox sometimes non-Christians.

Forgive me! Its so sad!
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Fr.Aidan on September 22, 2011, 09:00:27 PM
Well, such things did occur on occasion even back in the 18th century, but it didn't make the Orthodox Church vanish into smoke and cease to exist. And neither today.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Fr.Aidan on September 22, 2011, 09:02:50 PM
Also, why didn't Fr. Ambrose simply provide the documentation? Did he just decide not to? Did he take ill at an inopportune moment? It seems very odd, to me, that he would simply let himself get censured. Maybe he has some other, overriding motive?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on September 23, 2011, 12:05:39 AM
Also, why didn't Fr. Ambrose simply provide the documentation? Did he just decide not to? Did he take ill at an inopportune moment? It seems very odd, to me, that he would simply let himself get censured. Maybe he has some other, overriding motive?

Didn't he state on your discussion Yahoo! group that he was beginning to physically move from his location as he was being replaced by a priest & his wife from Russia?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on September 23, 2011, 12:09:31 AM
Well, such things did occur on occasion even back in the 18th century, but it didn't make the Orthodox Church vanish into smoke and cease to exist. And neither today.

 ???  Well, such things did occur on occasion even back in the 18th century, but it didn't make the Orthodox Christian vanish into smoke and cease to exist when he sinned. And neither today; but he still falls outside the Church when he sins and returns to the Church when he repents. Local ecclesial bodies are the same.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Fr.Aidan on September 23, 2011, 09:51:05 AM
I have it on the best authority, that Fr. Ambrose did provide the documentation requested by the moderators, to the moderators. But they ignored it and censured him anyway.

Shame!
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnwarn.gif) Moderators have not received anything from Irish Hermit yet. What is more you are criticising moderators' decisions in public and that is forbidden by the forum rules. Therefore you receive a 20-day-long warning. If you disagree with the decision of Second Chance you should contact Fr. George - the global moderator that oversees him - MK.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Fr.Aidan on September 23, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Since no one has stated what they mean by "canonical," I cannot pontificate  ;) on whether the Milan Synod does or does not meet a specific definition.

I can say that Milan Synod clergy have served, in rank, without any reordination whatsoever, in the ranks of Metropolitan, Archbishop, Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, in churches of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Orthodox Church in America (OCA), Moscow Patriarchate, Romanian Patriarchate, Polish Autocephalous Church, and Serbian Patriarchate, when leaving the Milan Synod behind them. I can say that clergy of the Milan Synod have concelebrated the Liturgy with clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate and Romanian Patriarchate.

That is different from the Milan Synod being recognized officially by any of those Local Orthodox Churches. It is not.

Here are the historical details, from a public post I made Feb. 6, 2008, on the Occidentalis group for discussion of the Western Rite in the Orthodox Church:

==============================

IN HIERARCHICAL RANK. Metropolitan Gabriel of Lisbon and his vicar Bishops Iakovos and Theodoros were received in rank into the Polish Orthodox Church in 1989. Metropolitan Gabriel, without intermission, simply began serving as a Metropolitan of the Polish Church. When in Europe rumours began to circulate that they had undergone a fresh ordination, Warsaw confirmed, in a document dated Feb. 11, 1991, that no re-ordination had occurred. An official letter from Metropolitan Gabriel of the Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church, dated Mar 14, 1993, also confirms that no reconsecration of the Bishops occurred—they were received in their episcopal dignities.

Archbishop Lazar of Ottawa (a defrocked former Deacon of the Russian Church Outside Russia who had been rehabilitated by the Free Serbian Church) and Bishop Varlaam of Vancouver Gabriel, both of whom were consecrated to the episcopate by Metropolitan Evloghios of Milan, but later abandoned the Milan Synod in order to join the Kievan Patriarchate, were received as retired Hierarchs by the OCA on May 24, 2002. They are listed on the OCA's official website as Hierarchs together with Theodosius, former Metropolitan, Gregory, former Bishop of Sitka and Alaska, and other retired OCA Hierarchs. Metr. Evloghios consecrated Abp. Lazar on Sept. 28, 1990, Bp. Varlaam on Apr. 1, 1994. (reference:
http://www.oca.org/pages/ocaadmin/episcopacy/index.html#retired)

Abp. Lazar and Bp. Varlaam concelebrated with Metr. Herman of the OCA on July 23, 2004, during the triennial Assembly of the OCA's Archdiocese of Canada.

IN PRIESTLY RANK. In France, in 1989, Archpriest Gerard de la Garde and Deacon Joseph Fouilleul, two clergy ordained by Metr. Gabriel of Lisbon, were accepted into the Moscow Patriarchate, without reordination, by the Exarch Vladimir (Sobodan), presently Metropolitan of Kiev of the Autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate).

When Metr. Gabriel and his Bishops were received in rank into the Polish Orthodox Church in 1989, some 30 of their Priests were likewise received, in rank, into the same Polish Orthodox Church.

IN DIACONAL RANK. In Germany, the Exarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church Lavrentije (now Bishop of Sabac-Valjevo), received Deacon Basil Manfred Danfeld, a resident of Berlin, ordained Nov. 28, 1989 by Metropolitan Evloghios of Milan. At Bishop Lavrentije's request, Metr. Evloghios signed an official letter of canonical release on Mar. 5, 1991. Fr. Deacon Basil was received as a Deacon without reordination.

There have also been cases when clergy of the Milan Synod were received into other Orthodox Churches WITH reordination. But the fact is, there would be no theological barrier to the EP's receiving a Milan Synod Bishop in rank. It is not likely given the politics of the situation, however.

When I applied to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, in late 2004, I was initially told that I would most likely not need to be reordained. In the end, it was decided to receive me and the other nine or so Milan Synod priests who have left the Milan Synod for the Russian Church Abroad, by the process of a cheirothesia.

I have since concelebrated the Sacred Liturgy with clergy of the Antiochian Archdiocese, Serbian Patriarchate, and Ecumenical Patriarchate.

I hope this will be useful information to some.

Hieromonk Aidan+
sinner
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on September 23, 2011, 02:15:15 PM
Since no one has stated what they mean by "canonical," [...]

I can say that Milan Synod clergy have served, in rank, without any reordination whatsoever, in the ranks of Metropolitan, Archbishop, Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, in churches of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Orthodox Church in America (OCA), Moscow Patriarchate, Romanian Patriarchate, Polish Autocephalous Church, and Serbian Patriarchate, when leaving the Milan Synod behind them. I can say that clergy of the Milan Synod have concelebrated the Liturgy with clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate and Romanian Patriarchate. [...]

Hieromonk Aidan+
sinner

While all this is true and complimentary it is nothing more than recognition. This is a variant of the papal-caesarism in which all a local faith community needs is to be recognized by a ancient or major Patrriarchate to be considered legitimate or canonical. This is a Western notion and foreign to the Orthodox mind. But recognition is not necessarily the same as being canonical. In fact such recognition does not necessarily guarantee that the new community is in fact canonically faithful or thoroughly compliant to the Orthodox Standard.

To be canonical is simply to maintain a vigilant fidelity to the Sacred Canons & Holy Tradition of Orthodoxy as handed down to us from the Holy Fathers without ever being too rigid or too liberal in the exercise of the Faith. A Synod can possess the finest apostolic succession but if they have adopted an innovation that is contrary to the long Tradition of Faith they then are no longer canonical in spite of their historical connection. Such fidelity to the Canons & Traditions of the Faith naturally include doctrine, discipline and culture unique to the patristic Church. To be in-communion with a local church that is failing in its canonical observance (e.g., giving communion to heterodox or hierarchs praying with leaders of non-Orthodox communities, etc.) and one remains silent or passive (offering no brotherly correction) then the second local synod is as guilty as the first by association and thus, too, is uncanonical.  While World Orthodox jurisdictions accepted exiting hierarchs & clergy from Milan Synod in their orders ("ranks") from a traditional view these same hierarchs and clergy lost their orders having entered under the omophor of an uncanonical jurisdiction.

forgive me for my opinion,
monk Symeon

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: mike on September 23, 2011, 02:29:22 PM
While all this is true and complimentary it is nothing more than recognition. This is a variant of the papal-caesarism in which all a local faith community needs is to be recognized by a ancient or major Patrriarchate to be considered legitimate or canonical. This is a Western notion and foreign to the Orthodox mind.

Seeing no need in being recognised is Calvinism.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Fabio Leite on September 23, 2011, 02:33:08 PM
Arian also served under canonical jurisdictions.

And canonical means those who mutually recognize that each other follow the traditional canons of the Church, which the Millan Synod does not. Schismatic groups are by definition made of people who were once canonical, although their new group no longer is.

Besides, the orders are a gift of the Church and that exist only *in* the Church. One cannot just get it and run away like a kid stealing an ice-cream and then crying "it's mine, mine, mine". Outside the oasis of the Church in the hot sun of schismatic desert, the ice-cream simply melts away.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 23, 2011, 02:41:06 PM
While all this is true and complimentary it is nothing more than recognition. This is a variant of the papal-caesarism in which all a local faith community needs is to be recognized by a ancient or major Patrriarchate to be considered legitimate or canonical. This is a Western notion and foreign to the Orthodox mind.

I don't know. It seems to me that our concept of canonicity has roots in the writings of St. Irenaeus Against the Heresies. Whatever we may think of modern day RC interpretation of his writings, he did say something about how agreement with Rome was a sure sign of one's orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Fabio Leite on September 23, 2011, 03:01:37 PM
While all this is true and complimentary it is nothing more than recognition. This is a variant of the papal-caesarism in which all a local faith community needs is to be recognized by a ancient or major Patrriarchate to be considered legitimate or canonical. This is a Western notion and foreign to the Orthodox mind.

I don't know. It seems to me that our concept of canonicity has roots in the writings of St. Irenaeus Against the Heresies. Whatever we may think of modern day RC interpretation of his writings, he did say something about how agreement with Rome was a sure sign of one's orthodoxy.

This is the full quotation:
Quote
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority,
Quote
33133313    The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.v.html)] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome.
 that is, the faithful everywhere,
416
inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html


The main idea of said note:
Quote
Taking the entire argument of our author with the context, then, it amounts to this: “We must ask, not for local, but universal, testimony. Now, in every Church founded by the apostles has been handed down their traditions; but, as it would be a tedious thing to collect them all, let this suffice. Take that Church (nearest at hand, and which is the only Apostolic Church of the West), the great and glorious Church at Rome, which was there founded by the two apostles Peter and Paul. In her have been preserved the traditions of all the Churches, because everybody is forced to go to the seat of empire: and therefore, by these representatives of the whole Catholic Church, the apostolic traditions have been all collected in Rome:37973797    Nobody has more forcibly stated the argument of Irenæus than the Abbé Guettée, in his exhaustive work on the Papacy. I published a translation of this valuable historical epitome in New York (Carleton), 1867; but it is out of print. The original may be had in Paris (Fischbacher), No. 33 Rue de Seine.  and you have a synoptical view of all Churches in what is there preserved.”
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on September 23, 2011, 03:09:23 PM
Arian also served under canonical jurisdictions.

Throughout the history of The Church there has always been someone within a canonical jurisdiction teaching errors. One person does not spoil the whole unless such a teacher of errors goes uncorrected by the heirarchy under whom he must be obedient.

Quote from: Fabio Leite
And canonical means those who mutually recognize that each other follow the traditional canons of the Church, which the Millan Synod does not. Schismatic groups are by definition made of people who were once canonical, although their new group no longer is.

No, This definition refers to two canonical synods in mutual recognition and in unity. Recognition does not make the other canonical. Both must already be canonical. Or a canonical synod may make corrections to another and if they comply then they become also canonical followed by recognition (read: unity).

Quote from: Fabio Leite
Besides, the orders are a gift of the Church and that exist only *in* the Church. One cannot just get it and run away like a kid stealing an ice-cream and then crying "it's mine, mine, mine". Outside the oasis of the Church in the hot sun of schismatic desert, the ice-cream simply melts away.

That's another way of saying what I said in my last paragraph.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Fabio Leite on September 23, 2011, 03:15:44 PM
Arian also served under canonical jurisdictions.

Throughout the history of The Church there has always been someone within a canonical jurisdiction teaching errors. One person does not spoil the whole unless such a teacher of errors goes uncorrected by the heirarchy under whom he must be obedient.

Which is the case of the "synod" of Milan. Unnaccepted and unrepetent, they do not give up their pretensions to lawfuly join canonical churches in humility. Like so many other "genuine", "true" "Orthodox", they are just to proud to be part of something, they want to be the head, their own ideological utopias of Western Orthodoxy being more important than anything.


Quote
No, This definition refers to two canonical synods in mutual recognition and in unity. Recognition does not make the other canonical. Both must already be canonical. Or a canonical synod may make corrections to another and if they comply then they become also canonical followed by recognition (read: unity).


There is no canonicity out of unit. No schismatic group is canonical. As mentioned below, canonicity is not something you can get from an Orthodox bishop and then run away with it to create your own Orthodoxy. Canonicity is more than legal formality, but a gift of Grace that exists only withing the communion of the Church

Quote
Quote from: Fabio Leite
Besides, the orders are a gift of the Church and that exist only *in* the Church. One cannot just get it and run away like a kid stealing an ice-cream and then crying "it's mine, mine, mine". Outside the oasis of the Church in the hot sun of schismatic desert, the ice-cream simply melts away.

That's another way of saying what I said in my last paragraph.

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on September 23, 2011, 03:21:38 PM

This is the full quotation:

This does not contradict what I have offered. This presumes, correctly, in that time in history that the Church of Rome was canonical faithfully living the Orthodox Standard and that all should be judged in the light of Rome.

Does Rome still hold this pristine position?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Fabio Leite on September 23, 2011, 03:30:18 PM

This is the full quotation:

This does not contradict what I have offered. This presumes, correctly, in that time in history that the Church of Rome was canonical faithfully living the Orthodox Standard and that all should be judged in the light of Rome.

Does Rome still hold this pristine position?

More than that, she was living faithfully because Rome, due to its position in the empire, was a natural meeting point for Christians from everywhere in the world who could then put in check their local practices and beliefs and filter heresies and superstitions. Since East and West drifted apart, initially for natural spontaneous reasons, Rome obviously ceased being that and fell victim of its own provincialism.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 23, 2011, 03:32:52 PM

This is the full quotation:

This does not contradict what I have offered. This presumes, correctly, in that time in history that the Church of Rome was canonical faithfully living the Orthodox Standard and that all should be judged in the light of Rome.

Does Rome still hold this pristine position?
But you miss the point of why I brought this up. My point is that the faithful could measure one's orthodoxy by her agreement with a mutually respected central authority (however one understands the concept of authority), whether that authority be Rome, Constantinople, Moscow, or Timbuktu.

Also, you look through the 20/20 hindsight that the centuries have given us and see early Rome as orthodox, but what of those who during the time of Rome's orthodoxy disagreed with Rome? Did they think Rome canonical? Or did they not and instead seek to use cunning words to justify their separation from Rome and from the rest of the Church?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on September 23, 2011, 05:20:20 PM

So it comes down to whether one believes the calendar change outside a pan-Orthodox Council, joint prayer with non-Orthodox, neo-sergianist collaboration with secular powers, the eager and relentless pursuit towards unity with the heretical Rome, etc, etc, does or does not violate canonical tradition.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 23, 2011, 07:02:55 PM

So it comes down to whether one believes the calendar change outside a pan-Orthodox Council, joint prayer with non-Orthodox, neo-sergianist collaboration with secular powers, the eager and relentless pursuit towards unity with the heretical Rome, etc, etc, does or does not violate canonical tradition.
How does that answer my question? ???
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FormerReformer on September 23, 2011, 08:12:05 PM

So it comes down to whether one believes the calendar change outside a pan-Orthodox Council, joint prayer with non-Orthodox, neo-sergianist collaboration with secular powers, the eager and relentless pursuit towards unity with the heretical Rome, etc, etc, does or does not violate canonical tradition.
How does that answer my question? ???
Why answer your question? It means getting off the endless merry-go-round of schismatic talking points and engaging in a real discussion. World Orthodox are just graceless heretics, anyway, we should be glad these representatives of True(tm) Orthodoxy even deign to speak with such as us (in direct contradiction of the teachings of St Paul, no less).

I for one will gladly jump on the merry-go-round: since when does it take a pan-Orthodox synod to change something (like, say, a calendar) that was never set by an ecumenical Council (though the only texts that claim to be from an Ecumenical council related to the calendar issue state that the Pascha should be the Sunday after the full moon following the Spring Equinox)? And if it does take an pan-Orthodox council to change the calendar, what about the pan-Orthodox council that changed the calendar (1923)? What does neo-Sergianism mean and what ecumenical Council condemned Sergianism in the first place (and is it even possible to have a Neo-sergianim when the original Sergianism was less than 80 years ago and according to the Milan Synod is still going strong what with the MP being the same-old-sergianists)?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: searn77 on September 23, 2011, 10:23:58 PM
Arian also served under canonical jurisdictions.

Throughout the history of The Church there has always been someone within a canonical jurisdiction teaching errors. One person does not spoil the whole unless such a teacher of errors goes uncorrected by the heirarchy under whom he must be obedient.

Which is the case of the "synod" of Milan. Unnaccepted and unrepetent, they do not give up their pretensions to lawfuly join canonical churches in humility. Like so many other "genuine", "true" "Orthodox", they are just to proud to be part of something, they want to be the head, their own ideological utopias of Western Orthodoxy being more important than anything.

The Synod of Milan is seeking to join the Moscow Patriarchate so I don't see how they "want to be the head" if they are wanting to be under the Moscow Patriarch.

Quote
No, This definition refers to two canonical synods in mutual recognition and in unity. Recognition does not make the other canonical. Both must already be canonical. Or a canonical synod may make corrections to another and if they comply then they become also canonical followed by recognition (read: unity).


There is no canonicity out of unit. No schismatic group is canonical. As mentioned below, canonicity is not something you can get from an Orthodox bishop and then run away with it to create your own Orthodoxy. Canonicity is more than legal formality, but a gift of Grace that exists only withing the communion of the Church

But that's just it; we don't think we're schismatic. Certain bishops in Greece, at the time when the new calendar was being introduced in the Greek Church because of ecumenism, ceased commemorating the bishops who accepted the calendar change. And if you read the Ecumenical Patriarch's 1920 encyclical "Unto the Churches of Christ Everywhere" you'll see that it wasn't just because of the calendar that these "Old Calendarists" didn't go along with the other Greek bishops. These Old Calendarists didn't split from the Church, they remained faithful to the Church. And in Russia when the Soviets infiltrated the Russian Church, certain Russian clergymen ceased commemorating the Seargianist clergy and remained faithful to the Church. Both the Old Calendarists and the Russian Catacomb Orthodox were highly persecuted and even martyred for their faith in the Church. But they did not split from anybody; they remained united to the Orthodox Church.

So these bishops didn't just get their orders and run away like a kid stealing ice cream. They received their orders and remained true to the Orthodox Church.

Sadly due to persecutions, historical circumstances, and misunderstandings, the Old Calendarists and Catacomb Orthodox are not all in communion with each other which is not unheard of in the history of the Orthodox Church when a heresy arises (ex. Arian controversy, St. Meletius, and St. Athanasius). But hopefully in time we will hear of more Old Calendarist synods uniting with one another.

"Many of them follow the bishops of the few Orthodox jurisdicitions that have strong stands against the apostasy of our times: the Catacomb Church of Russia, the Russian Church Outside of Russia, the True Orthodox Christians [Old Calendarists] of Greece. But there are some left in other jurisdictions also, grieving over the ever more evident apostasy of their hierarchs and striving somehow to keep their own Orthodoxy intact;" - Fr. Seraphim Rose, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future


Quote
Quote from: Fabio Leite
Besides, the orders are a gift of the Church and that exist only *in* the Church. One cannot just get it and run away like a kid stealing an ice-cream and then crying "it's mine, mine, mine". Outside the oasis of the Church in the hot sun of schismatic desert, the ice-cream simply melts away.

That's another way of saying what I said in my last paragraph.

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: searn77 on September 23, 2011, 10:40:39 PM

So it comes down to whether one believes the calendar change outside a pan-Orthodox Council, joint prayer with non-Orthodox, neo-sergianist collaboration with secular powers, the eager and relentless pursuit towards unity with the heretical Rome, etc, etc, does or does not violate canonical tradition.
How does that answer my question? ???
Why answer your question? It means getting off the endless merry-go-round of schismatic talking points and engaging in a real discussion. World Orthodox are just graceless heretics, anyway, we should be glad these representatives of True(tm) Orthodoxy even deign to speak with such as us (in direct contradiction of the teachings of St Paul, no less).

Have any Old Calendarists on this forum that you have personally encountered really come across like you portray here, exaggeration aside? I admit, there may have been some who sinfully acted like that. But I've seen this same type of holier-than-thou type of attitude from New Calendarists as well. This attitude isn't trademarked by us.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on September 23, 2011, 10:49:00 PM
But you miss the point of why I brought this up....

Well one would think so until such authority itself falls into schism or heresy.

Quote from: PeterTheAleut
Also, you look through the 20/20 hindsight that the centuries have given us and see early Rome as orthodox, but what of those who during the time of Rome's orthodoxy disagreed with Rome?

An interesting question. Were contemporary churchman in Orthodox England, for example, aware that the Arian Goths were a significant influence upon Rome in the years prior to the Great Schism?  Of those in doctrinal contradiction to Old Rome I cannot say, I am not that old myself.

Quote from: PeterTheAleut
Did they think Rome canonical? Or did they not and instead seek to use cunning words to justify their separation from Rome and from the rest of the Church?

Pride knows no bounds. But if you are insinuating that the traditional Orthodox are to be alikened to these “separatists” in your example then the analogy fails. The very existence of the traditionalist movement is in the face of the treacheries of the heresiarch Meletios Metataxis and his living inheritance in our own day.

Why answer your question? It means getting off ...

Indeed. There is more to do in life than be here on OC.net
What a heartless disposition. God forgives.

Quote from: FormerReformer
I for one will gladly jump on the merry-go-round...

I am not with the Milan Synod nor am I its apologist. The Milan Synod by its own actions considers itself among World Orthodox therefore it is now in schism.

Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 24, 2011, 01:13:34 AM
But you miss the point of why I brought this up....

Well one would think so until such authority itself falls into schism or heresy.

Quote from: PeterTheAleut
Also, you look through the 20/20 hindsight that the centuries have given us and see early Rome as orthodox, but what of those who during the time of Rome's orthodoxy disagreed with Rome?

An interesting question. Were contemporary churchman in Orthodox England, for example, aware that the Arian Goths were a significant influence upon Rome in the years prior to the Great Schism?  Of those in doctrinal contradiction to Old Rome I cannot say, I am not that old myself.

Quote from: PeterTheAleut
Did they think Rome canonical? Or did they not and instead seek to use cunning words to justify their separation from Rome and from the rest of the Church?

Pride knows no bounds. But if you are insinuating that the traditional Orthodox are to be alikened to these “separatists” in your example then the analogy fails. The very existence of the traditionalist movement is in the face of the treacheries of the heresiarch Meletios Metataxis and his living inheritance in our own day.
Okay. :-\ You're still speaking from your list of talking points, but you still fail to address my point.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FormerReformer on September 24, 2011, 10:52:50 AM


Quote from: FormerReformer
I for one will gladly jump on the merry-go-round...

I am not with the Milan Synod nor am I its apologist. The Milan Synod by its own actions considers itself among World Orthodox therefore it is now in schism.



I'm sorry, I didn't get the memo about the name change to the "Autonomous Metropolia", I let my subscription to "Schismatic Churches Update Weekly" run out after the "used to be in communion with" section started running beyond a hundred pages and my mailman went on strike.

Still, now you're not even addressing the points from the merry-go-round, but are hanging upside down on the monkey bars of nitpicking what name your group is currently addressed by.

To reask:since when does it take a pan-Orthodox synod to change something (like, say, a calendar) that was never set by an ecumenical Council (though the only texts that claim to be from an Ecumenical council related to the calendar issue state that the Pascha should be the Sunday after the full moon following the Spring Equinox)? And if it does take an pan-Orthodox council to change the calendar, what about the pan-Orthodox council that changed the calendar (1923)? What does neo-Sergianism mean and what ecumenical Council condemned Sergianism in the first place (and is it even possible to have a Neo-sergianim when the original Sergianism was less than 80 years ago and according to the Milan Synod  Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia [TOC(tm)]is still going strong what with the MP being the same-old-sergianists)?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: searn77 on September 24, 2011, 12:12:47 PM


Quote from: FormerReformer
I for one will gladly jump on the merry-go-round...

I am not with the Milan Synod nor am I its apologist. The Milan Synod by its own actions considers itself among World Orthodox therefore it is now in schism.



I'm sorry, I didn't get the memo about the name change to the "Autonomous Metropolia", I let my subscription to "Schismatic Churches Update Weekly" run out after the "used to be in communion with" section started running beyond a hundred pages and my mailman went on strike.

Still, now you're not even addressing the points from the merry-go-round, but are hanging upside down on the monkey bars of nitpicking what name your group is currently addressed by.

To reask:since when does it take a pan-Orthodox synod to change something (like, say, a calendar) that was never set by an ecumenical Council (though the only texts that claim to be from an Ecumenical council related to the calendar issue state that the Pascha should be the Sunday after the full moon following the Spring Equinox)? And if it does take an pan-Orthodox council to change the calendar, what about the pan-Orthodox council that changed the calendar (1923)? What does neo-Sergianism mean and what ecumenical Council condemned Sergianism in the first place (and is it even possible to have a Neo-sergianim when the original Sergianism was less than 80 years ago and according to the Milan Synod  Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia [TOC(tm)]is still going strong what with the MP being the same-old-sergianists)?

Offending and mocking Fr. Symeon or anyone else and then asking them to answer your questions is never a good way to try and have a discussion.

Here's a quote from Bishop Photius of Triaditsa about the "pan-orthodox council" of 1923:
Quote
To call such a church forum "Pan-Orthodox" is, to put it mildly, presumptuous. The representatives of the three elder sees after Constantinople (Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) refused to take part. The Russian Church, the Archbishop of Sinai and the Bulgarian Church (which the Ecumenical Patriarch considered to be schismatic at that time) also did not participate. It is noteworthy that more than half of the local Churches were not represented, and the authority of those who did participate is questionable as well. According to the opinion of the famous canonist and theologian, S. Troitsky, who analyzed the ecclesiological-legal aspect of this question, the members of the commission had no right, at the time of the meeting, to express the opinions of their Churches since the local Churches had not yet formulated their decisions on the questions that went into the protocol of the congress. In such circumstances the delegates could only, in fact, express "their own, personal opinions," [11] or, at best, the opinion of their synods, which themselves had no right to decide general Church, canonical or even more importantly, dogmatic questions. Professor Troitsky defines this "Pan-Orthodox Congress" from an ecclesiological point of view as "a private meeting of a few people, who had as their agenda the examination of various questions which troubled the Orthodox Church at that time, concerning which, they expressed their opinions."[12] Nevertheless, in spite of the canonical irregularity of the congress' make-up and its representatives, Meletius very self-assuredly announced that, "We work as a commission of the whole Church."[13]
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/photii_2.aspx

Here are some recent examples of Sergianism. Clergy from the Moscow Patriarchate and the government are working in communion to seize churches from Catacomb synods (the only synod I have heard of them doing this to is ROCOR-A) and giving them over the Moscow Patriarchate. Here's one instance where this has happened:
http://news.ruschurchabroad.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121%3A2011-01-21-21-24-31&catid=24%3A2010-04-15-03-46-45&Itemid=4&lang=en
And here's another instance where they're trying to do the same thing to a monastery:
http://news.ruschurchabroad.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=200%3A2011-09-08-16-55-36&catid=49%3A2010-12-14-01-43-57&Itemid=5&lang=en

You can not believe it if you wish as you're free to do that. I won't mock or attack other members on this forum. But I don't think I want to partake in discussion on this thread any longer.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FormerReformer on September 24, 2011, 12:42:46 PM


Quote from: FormerReformer
I for one will gladly jump on the merry-go-round...

I am not with the Milan Synod nor am I its apologist. The Milan Synod by its own actions considers itself among World Orthodox therefore it is now in schism.



I'm sorry, I didn't get the memo about the name change to the "Autonomous Metropolia", I let my subscription to "Schismatic Churches Update Weekly" run out after the "used to be in communion with" section started running beyond a hundred pages and my mailman went on strike.

Still, now you're not even addressing the points from the merry-go-round, but are hanging upside down on the monkey bars of nitpicking what name your group is currently addressed by.

To reask:since when does it take a pan-Orthodox synod to change something (like, say, a calendar) that was never set by an ecumenical Council (though the only texts that claim to be from an Ecumenical council related to the calendar issue state that the Pascha should be the Sunday after the full moon following the Spring Equinox)? And if it does take an pan-Orthodox council to change the calendar, what about the pan-Orthodox council that changed the calendar (1923)? What does neo-Sergianism mean and what ecumenical Council condemned Sergianism in the first place (and is it even possible to have a Neo-sergianim when the original Sergianism was less than 80 years ago and according to the Milan Synod  Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia [TOC(tm)]is still going strong what with the MP being the same-old-sergianists)?

Offending and mocking Fr. Symeon or anyone else and then asking them to answer your questions is never a good way to try and have a discussion.

Here's a quote from Bishop Photius of Triaditsa about the "pan-orthodox council" of 1923:
Quote
To call such a church forum "Pan-Orthodox" is, to put it mildly, presumptuous. The representatives of the three elder sees after Constantinople (Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) refused to take part. The Russian Church, the Archbishop of Sinai and the Bulgarian Church (which the Ecumenical Patriarch considered to be schismatic at that time) also did not participate. It is noteworthy that more than half of the local Churches were not represented, and the authority of those who did participate is questionable as well. According to the opinion of the famous canonist and theologian, S. Troitsky, who analyzed the ecclesiological-legal aspect of this question, the members of the commission had no right, at the time of the meeting, to express the opinions of their Churches since the local Churches had not yet formulated their decisions on the questions that went into the protocol of the congress. In such circumstances the delegates could only, in fact, express "their own, personal opinions," [11] or, at best, the opinion of their synods, which themselves had no right to decide general Church, canonical or even more importantly, dogmatic questions. Professor Troitsky defines this "Pan-Orthodox Congress" from an ecclesiological point of view as "a private meeting of a few people, who had as their agenda the examination of various questions which troubled the Orthodox Church at that time, concerning which, they expressed their opinions."[12] Nevertheless, in spite of the canonical irregularity of the congress' make-up and its representatives, Meletius very self-assuredly announced that, "We work as a commission of the whole Church."[13]
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/photii_2.aspx

Here are some recent examples of Sergianism. Clergy from the Moscow Patriarchate and the government are working in communion to seize churches from Catacomb synods (the only synod I have heard of them doing this to is ROCOR-A) and giving them over the Moscow Patriarchate. Here's one instance where this has happened:
http://news.ruschurchabroad.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121%3A2011-01-21-21-24-31&catid=24%3A2010-04-15-03-46-45&Itemid=4&lang=en
And here's another instance where they're trying to do the same thing to a monastery:
http://news.ruschurchabroad.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=200%3A2011-09-08-16-55-36&catid=49%3A2010-12-14-01-43-57&Itemid=5&lang=en

You can not believe it if you wish as you're free to do that. I won't mock or attack other members on this forum. But I don't think I want to partake in discussion on this thread any longer.

I'm sorry, but it is somewhat tiring to go over the same talking points over and over and over and over. If we are limiting the conversation to Calendars, Sergianism, etc then by all means don't get all huffy that someone hasn't followed every last turn of the alphabet soup of your Church but answer questions relating to your little merry-go-round. I'd assume you readily have merry-go-round information ready. My "mocking" is open and honest, Papa Symeon mocks us every time he changes the talking points when a question is asked he doesn't like the answer to.

EDITed for afterthought: Why is it "speaking the Truth in Love" for you guys to call us Sergianists and ecumenicists and not at all offensive, but it's mocking and offensive for me to speak the truth in jest?

As for the "pan-orthodoxy" of the 1923 congress, I would say it's at least as "pan-Orthodox" as the councils in Constantinople in the 16th century often referred to in condemnation of the Gregorian calendar (which only had the three ancient Churches in attendance). A meeting of the representatives of more than one local Church is either "pan-Orthodox" or it isn't (this doesn't preclude that it's a Robber Synod, but even a robber synod is still "pan-Orthodox"), if you want a meeting of all the Churches for pan-Orthodox appellation then there is absolutely no canonical grounds for condemning the Gregorian calendar to begin with.

As for your recent examples of "Sergianism".... First- who and when condemned "Sergianism". Second- is every instance of the Orthodox Church working in concert with the government "Sergianism" when it claims property or enforces "Orthodoxy"? Doesn't this make all the Ecumenical Councils "Sergian" and the Baptists right?
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: Ionnis on September 24, 2011, 01:00:11 PM
Searn, that isn't Sergianism.  In those two cases you cited, it was the Moscow Patriarchate using the government to do their wishes, not the other way around.  BTW, I don't take you Russian Old Calendarist sectarians very seriously, after all the Russian Church has been a department of the Russian government since 1700.  Then again, I'm a member of "ROCOR-Laurus" so what do I know.  
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PapaSymeon on September 24, 2011, 01:24:04 PM
If an 8th Ecumenical Council is indeed gathered by the Phanar and they ratify union with Rome, where will you stand? With the "Unionist" or with the anti-Unionists?  Yes this is hypothetical but it may happen.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: FormerReformer on September 24, 2011, 01:27:17 PM
If an 8th Ecumenical Council is indeed gathered by the Phanar and they ratify union with Rome, where will you stand? With the "Unionist" or with the anti-Unionists?  Yes this is hypothetical but it may happen.

It really depends on what the terms of reunion are, just like the last two times an "8th Ecumenical Council" were called and ratified a union with Rome.
Title: Re: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 24, 2011, 01:34:15 PM
Searn, that isn't Sergianism.  In those two cases you cited, it was the Moscow Patriarchate using the government to do their wishes, not the other way around.  BTW, I don't take you Russian Old Calendarist sectarians very seriously, after all the Russian Church has been a department of the Russian government since 1700.
Good point. IIRC, the Romanov Tsars, starting from Peter the Great, were not all that friendly to Orthodoxy in their Russia, yet the Russian Orthodox Church consented to compromising with the imperial government to create a grossly uncanonical situation: the abolition of the patriarchate and its replacement with a Holy Synod chaired by a layman and acting as an arm of the government.