OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 21, 2014, 08:54:31 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Schismatic "traditionalist" groups AKA Groups to avoid at ALL cost  (Read 26886 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« on: October 30, 2002, 12:37:05 PM »

Dear friends,

Recently in another thread we heard of a Bishop leaving the KP for a schismatic traditionalist organization.  For your benifit I have compiled a list of the schismatic groups that one should avoid at all cost.  These groups can even be abusive at times.  

For the purpose of this thread, some abreviations are needed.  SV=Sedevacantist (believing no Pope since Pius XII) and DAS=douptful origen of Apostolic Succession (many "Bishops" have been consecrated by thucite "Bishops" or other douptful Bishops).  

Society of St. Pius V (SSPV)--SV a splinet group from the SSPX.  www.sspv.org

Congregation of Mary Immaculate Religious (CMRI)--SV DAS  Rome tends to regard this group as having possible Apostolic Succession, but the origin of their orders are douptful.  www.cmri.org

Society of St. John Chryostom (SSJC)--possibly SV, DAS  This is a group of former Old Catholic clergy who have accepted the dogmas of Immaculate Conception and Papal Infalibility.  Sorry can't find a URL.

There are numerous others out there, but just be careful when attening a Latin Mass.  contact the chancery office for the local Bishop.  They can tell you whether or not it is an indult parish.  

The Society of St. Pius X--neither SV or DAS.  A good group, although schismatic.  They offer up beutiful and reverent Liturgies, and if not for them, the indult would never have existed.  Although I cannot recomend you visit their chapels, I will not recomend against it either.  www.sspx.org

Joe Zollars

« Last Edit: October 30, 2002, 12:41:57 PM by JoeZollars » Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2002, 12:59:53 PM »

Joe, thanks, but this information has nothing to do with Eastern Orthodoxy, though I recommend as a rule that one not go to vagante houses of worship. An exception: visiting these or other places (including Anglican churches) to learn how to do the Roman Rite traditionally can't do a mature, knowledgeable Catholic any harm.

Relevant to this board, I already have recommended the link 'Portraits of the Patriarchs' on my Orthodoxy page. If a church is not headed by one of the men pictured there, or Metropolitan Laurus of ROCOR, stay away - it's not Orthodox!
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,742


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2002, 01:53:54 PM »

Relevant to this board, I already have recommended the link 'Portraits of the Patriarchs' on my Orthodoxy page. If a church is not headed by one of the men pictured there, or Metropolitan Laurus of ROCOR, stay away - it's not Orthodox!

Of course, it is not as simple as this, so merely for clarification do I post.  

The page Serge is talking about gives portraits and names of various Eastern Orthodox hierarchs.  By all means, if an Eastern Orthodox group is not headed by one of these, stay away.  

But there are Orthodox who are legit and not Eastern Orthodox.  I know of no similar page referencing the various Oriental Orthodox heads (does anyone know if there is one out there?).  Certainly, something like this would be very helpful, particularly with regard to various "Syrian" groups.  We somehow attract all the crazies...no vagante I know of ever wanted to be a Copt or an Armenian.  But there are plenty of "Mar Jehosaphats" out there for some reason.
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2002, 02:21:53 PM »

Good point, Mor Ephrem.

In that spirit, regarding questionable 'Oriental' bishops (all those bogus Mars out there) I recommend checking the official websites of the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Syrian Orthodox Church (they're orthodox but Oriental, not big-O Orthodox as in Byzantine), the Malankara Church (a subgroup of the Syrian Church?), the Coptic Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (again Oriental, not big-O Orthodox) and the Assyrian Church of the East. If the man in question isn't listed on any of these, he's bogus.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
OrthodoxyOrDeath
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


I'm a llama!


« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2002, 03:41:21 PM »

Well Serge, endeavoring to place True Orthodoxy in the line-up of egotistical men no better than the worlds endowment of new-calendar "bishops", you show you are accustomed to thinking in categories not very different than that of the Latins. Thus you have gone from following one pope to following a bunch of little popes.

You disagree?

It is well known that the Latin heresy began with the willful distortion of the Creed despite the absolute prohibition of the Church. This great heresy, as small as it would seem by today"s standards, successfully portrayed the Orthodox as schismatics! Cut of from the Holy Church, the heresies grew into an even more diabolical institution, unlawfully adopting the name of the "Catholic" Church.

So to is it today, where satan places the usurped seal of "truth" on his lies wrapped in the blanket of "the Orthodox Church", and leads man to the abyss.

Isn't this lack of fidelity to the faith and blind adherence to men so characteristic of all heresies?

Strange how you will list among your syncretist leaders the names of "Oriental" groups, of whom you do not commune, and at the same time will strongly denounce True Orthodox bishops. What kind of an idea is this? Help me understand this, are the "orientals" Orthodox to you because they are "friendly" and since "traditional" bishops are not "friendly", they are not Orthodox?

I re-read the "two-mothers" parable, and this just doesn't seem to fit.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2002, 05:20:39 PM by OrthodoxyOrDeath » Logged
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2002, 03:59:03 PM »

Friends,

I posted this information for everyone's edification.  The fact of the matter is many people don't know these groups are schismatics and heretics by Latin standards to boot.  Thus when this "orthodox" "bishop" became a CMRI "Bishop", people were hurling more slanders against Rome, not realizing this is as far removed from Rome as anything can be.  

Now this didn't happen so much on this forum as on others.  

Also how do you avoid something when you don't know who/what your avoiding.

I really did mean no insult here.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Aklie Semaet
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


Thank God for my fiancée!


« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2002, 04:13:45 PM »

they're orthodox but Oriental, not big-O Orthodox as in Byzantine

I am sorry but all of our Churches spell Orthodox with a big 'O' and no one is in a position to define us otherwise. 'Oriental' is just a convenient term that we use, it was actually invented by western academics and European philologists (read Edward Said's Orientalism for a background)

To actually identify ourselves as oriental (among ourselves) means that we define ourselves in relation to others (i.e. the Byzantines) and we certainly don't. The 'East' is the east to people who live in the west. To those in the east it is just home.

So we are oriental for the sake of convenience; otherwise we are Orthodox.
Logged

Ethiopia ijochwan wede Egzabiher tezregalech
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,742


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2002, 04:19:53 PM »

Nice, Aklie, nice!
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Raouf
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 97



« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2002, 04:36:48 PM »

Aklie,

Well said. And without sounding polemical, I believe historically, the Non-Chalcedonians always (post-Chalcedon) referred to themselves as the Orthodox while the Chalcedonians were called the Romans, or the Emperial Church. The term monophysite appeared much later.

We have always been the Orthodox Church. Oriental, Non-Chalcedonian, et. al. are as you said, terms of convenience. In Egypt, the Chalcedonians I believe are still called Romans.

In Christ,
Raouf
Logged

Flog your enemies with the Name of Jesus and let the remembrance of Jesus be present with each breath. - St. John Climacus
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2002, 04:52:29 PM »

I hate these semantic games, like we had earlier over 'Catholic'.

OK, one more time: the capitalized words here should be used on this forum in their commonly understood meanings.

Catholic: under Rome
Orthodox: Byzantine, not under Rome = in the Orthodox communion of Churches (see my Portraits link on my Orthodoxy page)
Oriental: Copts, Ethiopians, Armenian Apostolic Church, Syrian Church and Malankara Church
Assyrian: the Assyrian Church of the East

And, not capitalized, vagante: claiming to be apostolic but none of the above, nor in the Anglican Communion, nor in a recognized Lutheran church.

Regarding the attack from OrthodoxyorDeath...

One of the boasts of Eastern Orthodoxy is that because its theology of orders and the other mysteries is so bound up in the unity/communion of the Church, it is free of silly vagante game-playing (claiming 'valid lines of succession' outside a recognized Church). The Church is one, her mysteries are one.

But regrettably there are Eastern and pseudo-Eastern vagantes. Some are transparently false and insincere - the ones who call themselves Eastern Orthodox yet ape Roman or Anglican usages and rabbit on about their bishops' 'lines', and/or the sexual-issues (such as gay) groups.

Then there are what I guess one could call sincere vagantes like the Old Calendarist sects outside the Church. They think they and they alone follow the canons perfectly, no matter what the bishops in their lands and/or their former Churches say.

Thumbing one's nose at the hierarchy is not proof of Orthodoxy. The Church is both hierarchical and small-c charismatic as Bishop Kallistos (Ware), a real Orthodox bishop, wrote in The Orthodox Church. The Orthodox faith matters but so does the Orthodox hierarchy - they are inseparable in this body called the Church. To exalt one's own interpretation of the canons, etc., over 'world Orthodoxy's' is really very protestant - the principle of private judgement.

'World Orthodoxy' doesn't deny the Trinity or the divinity of Christ, that He is true God and true man. It maintains the apostolic ministry and doesn't ordain women - the attempted ordination of such is 'the death of all dialogue' to quote a so-called 'liberal' Orthodox, the late Fr Alexander Schmemann. (Doesn't sound liberal to me!) It doesn't concelebrate Communion with non-Orthodox - not in the WCC or NCC, not anywhere.

'True Orthodox' sects are no more Orthodox than Bishop Mark Pivarunas in the 'UGCC RECEIVES ORTHODOX BISHOP' thread is Catholic. They are orthodox (if personally unpleasant) but not big-O Orthodox.

Ironically, their stance reminds me of the attitude of some Byzantine Catholics - 'I like the Orthodox faith but don't like the Orthodox Church'.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2002, 05:19:44 PM by Serge » Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
OrthodoxyOrDeath
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


I'm a llama!


« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2002, 05:11:37 PM »

What’s in a name? After all, the Latins call themselves Catholic.

There are those who accept all Seven Ecumenical synods as being truly ecumenical, meaning there acceptance is compulsory.

Then there are those who treat the latter four as local councils. These groups are new-calendarists, Non-Chalcedonians, Non-Second Constantinopolitans, Non-Third Constantinopolitans, and Non-Second Nicaeans.


Serge,

That was not an attack and I will let you say your peace without consequence. I have no trouble following a "vangante" bishop as long as he is "vangante" to the world and not God.
Logged
Aklie Semaet
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


Thank God for my fiancée!


« Reply #11 on: October 30, 2002, 05:31:20 PM »

I hate these semantic games

It’s not about semantics simply respect. You are the one who just had to say things like “they're orthodox but Oriental, not big-O Orthodox as in Byzantine” so our response should have been expected.

I have no problem with using the term Oriental for convenience like I said

It is not a word game it is just the truth—we are capital ‘O’ Orthodox Christians

the capitalized words here should be used on this forum in their commonly understood meanings.

I think we would all accept the designation Oriental Orthodox but I can’t imagine one who would take the insult of small ‘o’ orthodox.

I am sorry, you are just going to have to get out of the habit of defining other people by fiat in your own terms and world view. I think some Eastern Orthodox  are looking for a new term since ‘monophysite’ became overworked. We never called ourselves ‘monophysites,’ ‘orientals’ or even ‘Pre-Chalcedonian (as if we are an evolving prototype of something bigger and better)” we always have referred to ourselves as Orthodox Christians.  

I don’t know whose ‘commonly understood meaning’ you are referring to. In our commonly understood meaning we simply refer to ourselves as capital O Orthodox Christians. If you came to my Church and called people Orientals most of the congregation (including some Priests) would not know what in the world (if indeed in this world) you were talking about. We are just Orthodox, I ‘become’ an oriental when I am in online discussions like this or when I am reading a book written by a Byzantine. Otherwise we never refer to ourselves as Orientals. I would not sit at a table, feasting on a California ‘fat burger,’ with Raouf and Mor Ephrem and say things such as ‘we OrientalsGǪ’ We would all refer to ourselves ‘we Orthodox’ if not ‘we Christians.’


God Bless
Logged

Ethiopia ijochwan wede Egzabiher tezregalech
abdur
Guest
« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2002, 05:31:49 PM »

To clarify:

The OC Orthodox Churches of Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece are in communion with the JP, therefore, they would not be considered schismatics.

Abdur
Logged
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2002, 05:37:49 PM »

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Abdur, also they are in communion with ROCOR as well, who is also in communion with the JP and Serbian Orthodox Church. God Bless!
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2002, 05:41:22 PM »

The problem I have with the indiscriminate use of big-O Orthodox is the West thinks all we Oriental Grease Balls Wink (to quote Fr Serge Keleher, a Russian Catholic) look alike anyway. Even 'Oriental' is imperfect because of the diverse rites among you.

I didn't say 'Monophysite' and 'Nestorian'. I said you're orthodox. Now let's move on.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Aklie Semaet
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


Thank God for my fiancée!


« Reply #15 on: October 30, 2002, 05:45:50 PM »

Ok,

Let us Oriental Orthodox and Byzantine orthodox move on  Roll Eyes

If Fr Serge Keleher was not joking he is insane.
Logged

Ethiopia ijochwan wede Egzabiher tezregalech
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #16 on: October 30, 2002, 06:19:24 PM »

[I am sorry, you are just going to have to get out of the habit of defining other people by fiat in your own terms and world view. ]

THANK YOU!  Serge seems to think he has the right to come in here and enforce HIS definitions of  what he thinks we should identify ourselves as.  

As long as he reduces the word 'Catholic' to semantics, he still shows his comprehension of Orthodoxy Catholicity isn't
what he thinks it is.

Orthodoc (The Orthodox Catholic)
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 30, 2002, 06:50:31 PM »

The past and present moderators agreed with my suggested terms back when this was byzantines.org. So enough!
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #18 on: October 30, 2002, 07:09:35 PM »

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Well if these terms are agreed upon the description of the forum above this one, Non-Chalcedonian Discussion, that is decribed as
"For issues pertaining to the Oriental Orthodox Churches." Since its a big "O" rather than a little "o" in Orthodoxy. So the question of these being agreed upon terms may be in question with Mor Ephrem's forum. God Bless!

Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,742


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #19 on: October 30, 2002, 09:42:17 PM »

We can never seem to escape this names thing.

In common parlance, Christians under the Pope of Rome are called Catholics.  This doesn't negate the Catholicity of the Orthodox Churches, it is just how common people speak.  

To be honest, I don't know how many people know about the Orthodox Churches, let alone the difference between Byzantines and Copts, Syrians, Armenians, Ethiopians, Eritreans, and Indians.  Hence, it is not as easily distinguishable.  

Certainly in the West, when one thinks "Orthodox", they think "Russian" or "Greek".  And so there might be merit in the argument that Byzantine Chalcedonians should be called Orthodox.  

But what about the Oriental Orthodox Churches?  You won't find us calling ourselves "Malankara Oriental Church", or "Coptic Oriental Church".  We have always used and will use big-O Orthodox, for that is what we are.  Should we sell out because we are not known?  I don't think I will find many Byzantine parishes called "Saint Alexander Nevsky Russian Eastern Church".  It is right that they call themselves "Russian Orthodox", and it is right for us to call ourselves "Indian Orthodox" or whatever.  Furthermore, the common person, who probably knows little about Orthodoxy as it is, will know even less about what Oriental is...chances are they'll think about rugs or want to order take-out.   Tongue

So, I propose the following, and, unless there is mass administratorial uproar, these will be the accepted terms.

Catholic: this is the acceptable shorthand (per common usage of the English language) for Christians under the Pope of Rome.  This will continue to be acceptable, but in order to prevent further problems with regard to names, posters are encouraged to take the extra effort to type out Roman Catholic when speaking of Western Christians under Rome, or Eastern (or insert name of proper rite here) Catholic when speaking of Eastern Christians in communion with Rome.  

Eastern Orthodox: this is the accepted way of referring to Eastern Christians not under Rome, who accept seven Ecumenical Councils, commonly use the Byzantine rite, etc.  For greater clarity, one is encouraged to mention the particular Church one is referring to, if it doesn't get too cumbersome (no need to make a list of fifteen Churches, but if you're only talking about one, just say "Greek Orthodox" or something).  

Oriental Orthodox: this will be the accepted way of referring to Eastern Christians not under Rome, not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox, and who only accept three Ecumenical Councils.  It is true that it is not as easy to categorise these Churches since they are in communion, but also are quite distinct one from the other.  But since Oriental Orthodox is commonly used (in spite of the fact that Eastern and Oriental mean the same thing, although they are different words), that is what will be used here.  However, one is always welcome to call the various Churches by their names (for example, Armenian Apostolic, Eritrean Orthodox, etc.).  

Assyrians: no one really has any dispute with this, so this will refer to those Christians not in communion with any of the above, who belong to the Assyrian Church of the East.  

Everyone knows what a vagante is, and if they don't, they'll know when they meet a member of the Anglican Orthodox Roman Apostolic Hittite Catholic Church of the Ozarks in communion with the Holy See of Boise in Idaho under the omophor of Patriarch Mar Leroy James.  You get the picture.  

I don't need to explain Protestants.  

Having said all this, please try to be considerate of each other and their respective Churches and abide by the guidelines set above.  Furthermore, Orthodox of either stripe who feel the need to add "Catholic" to the name are welcome to, so long as that is NOT the ONLY word they use to describe themselves, as such is confusing.  And if people still insist that one group should be Orthodox and the other "Oriental", I will move to eliminate that confusion by preventing people from using the word "Orthodox" and just the words "Eastern" or "Oriental".  I trust no one wants to go there, so we'll just abide by the rules above.  

Hopefully now we can move away from this fixation with names.  I pray I haven't offended anyone.  God bless you all.
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2002, 10:07:53 PM »

Mor Ephrem,

These names are fine with me.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #21 on: October 30, 2002, 11:26:28 PM »

To clarify:

The OC Orthodox Churches of Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece are in communion with the JP, therefore, they would not be considered schismatics.

Abdur

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Abdur, there are *several* so-called "True" OC Orthodox Churches of Greece, at least three of which have a hierarch entitled as "Archbishop of Athens and All Greece" as their Primate.  The OC Orthodox Churches of Bulgaria and Romania, AFAIK, are in communion with *only one* of these Greek OC Churches: The True Orthodox Church of Greece, Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili (Attica), Greece.  The ROCOR is in formal communion with Metropolitan Cyprian's Synod, but not with the Matthewites (or what's left of them), as the Matthewites generally do not wish to be in communion with anyone other than themselves (schismatics?).  I'm not sure of the status of the often-fragmenting and anathematizing other Greek OC Churches, but it is very confusing to say the least (HOCNA likes to include itself as one of these sometimes too).

Hypo-Ortho

« Last Edit: October 31, 2002, 12:03:39 AM by Hypo-Ortho » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

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


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 31, 2002, 01:17:15 AM »

For the record,  Mor Ephrem's suggested terms list is approved by me as well.

There's no sense distinguishing between Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians unless there is some sort of comparison/contrast thing going on.  They are both Orthodox and both groups believe the same things, using different language.  Some people such as the folks at orthodoxinfo.com still think Non-Chalcedonians are "monophysites" but they obviously have never spoken to an Armenian or Coptic priest. The issue of Chalcedon is a real issue that should not be ignored by syncretists, but not something that can't be worked out.  Remember that after the Council of Nicea, the homoiousios party (a substance LIKE the Father) party disagreed with the homoousios (SAME essence as the Father) party and had rival jurisdictions: the "Old" Nicenes and the "New" Nicenes.  Saint Athanasius wrote:

For as to those whom
some were blaming for speaking of three Subsistences(9), on the ground that
the phrase is unscriptural and therefore suspicious, we thought it right
indeed to require nothing beyond the confession of Nicaea, but on account of
the contention we made enquiry of them, whether they meant, like the Arian
madmen, subsistences foreign and strange, and alien in essence from one
another, and that each Subsistence was divided apart by itself, as is the case
with creatures in general and in particular with those begotten of men, or
like different substances, such as gold, silver, or brass;--or whether, like
other heretics, they meant three Beginnings and three Gods, by speaking of
three Subsistences.

    They assured us in reply that they neither meant this nor had ever held
it. But upon our asking them 'what then do you mean by it, or why do you use
such expressions?' they replied, Because they believed in a Holy Trinity, not
a trinity in name only, but existing and subsisting in truth, 'both a Father
truly existing and subsisting, and a Son truly substantial and subsisting, and
a Holy Spirit subsisting and really existing do we acknowledge,' and that
neither had they said there were three Gods or three beginnings, nor would
they at all tolerate such as said or held so, but that they acknowledged a
Holy Trinity but One Godhead, and one Beginning, and that the Son is
coessential with the Father, as the fathers said; while the Holy Spirit is not
a creature, nor external, but proper to and inseparable from the Essence of
the Father and the Son.

   6. The question of one Subsistence (Hypostasis). or three, not to be
pressed.

    Having accepted then these men's interpretation and defence of their
language, we made enquiry of those blamed by them for speaking of One
Subsistence, whether they use the expression in the sense of Sabellius, to the
negation of the Son and the Holy Spirit, or as though the Son were
non-substantial, or the Holy Spirit impersonal(10). But they in their turn
assured us that they neither meant this nor had ever held it, but 'we use the
word Subsistence thinking it the same thing to say Subsistence or Essence;'
'But we hold that there is One, because the Son is of the Essence of the
Father, and because of the identity of nature. For we believe that there is
one God. head, and that it has one nature, and not that there is one nature of
the Father, from which that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are distinct.'
Well, thereupon they who had been blamed for saying there were three
Subsistences agreed with the others, while those who had spoken of One
Essence, also confessed the doctrine of the former as interpreted by them. And
by both sides Arius was anathematised as an adversary of Christ, and
Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata, as impious men, and Valentinus and Basilides
as aliens from the truth, and Manichaeus as an inventor of mischief. And all,
by God's grace, and after the above explanations, agree together that the
faith confessed by the fathers at Nicaea is better than the said phrases, and
that for the future they would prefer to be content to use its language.

Athanasius, Tomus ad Antiochenos, 5-6

if they could recognize a difference in language, why can't the Non-Chalcedonians and the Chalcedonians do the same?  If the faith is the same, the issue of the council will resolve itself.

In Christ,

anastasios

Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
abdur
Guest
« Reply #23 on: October 31, 2002, 10:57:13 AM »

To clarify:

The OC Orthodox Churches of Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece are in communion with the JP, therefore, they would not be considered schismatics.

Abdur

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Abdur, there are *several* so-called "True" OC Orthodox Churches of Greece, at least three of which have a hierarch entitled as "Archbishop of Athens and All Greece" as their Primate.  The OC Orthodox Churches of Bulgaria and Romania, AFAIK, are in communion with *only one* of these Greek OC Churches: The True Orthodox Church of Greece, Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili (Attica), Greece.  The ROCOR is in formal communion with Metropolitan Cyprian's Synod, but not with the Matthewites (or what's left of them), as the Matthewites generally do not wish to be in communion with anyone other than themselves (schismatics?).  I'm not sure of the status of the often-fragmenting and anathematizing other Greek OC Churches, but it is very confusing to say the least (HOCNA likes to include itself as one of these sometimes too).

Hypo-Ortho



My aunt--at the time a secular and cynical minded Greek--met an Old Calendar Greek gentleman whose sincerity and piety revived her moribund faith.

After they married he was eventually ordained an OC priest and served small--and almost fugitive--Arvanite OC "parishes." All this at a time when being  a Royalist, OC, and a speaker of Arvanitika was problematic. The fact that half of his beloved presbytera's family were Muslims was a  heavy burden to bear, as one can imagine.

However, he had a harmonious soul and lived a good life: priest, husband, and father.

I truly admire the zeal and the fanaticism of the OC Orthodox.

Abdur
Logged
bripat22
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


Slava Tebie, Boze nas! Slava Tebie


« Reply #24 on: October 31, 2002, 12:00:40 PM »

I truly admire the zeal and the fanaticism of the OC Orthodox.

Abdur

   I am sure we all can admire their zeal and courage but must we admire their fanaticism or for that matter, any fanaticism?  Fanaticism, in my experience, has always seemed to breed hatred and backbiting which are surely not admirable qualities and there is a danger in this for those of Faith.

                                                          Peace,
                                                          Brian (Sacramento, Calif)
« Last Edit: October 31, 2002, 12:05:50 PM by Nik » Logged

For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like!-

                            Maggie Smith "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie"
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #25 on: October 31, 2002, 12:08:15 PM »

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Isn't Fanaticism defined as extreme zeal? So to appreciate their zeal is to appreciate their fanaticism, no? God Bless!
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
abdur
Guest
« Reply #26 on: October 31, 2002, 01:29:14 PM »

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Isn't Fanaticism defined as extreme zeal? So to appreciate their zeal is to appreciate their fanaticism, no? God Bless!

Can praise and high admiration be redundant?

Grace,

Abdur
Logged
abdur
Guest
« Reply #27 on: October 31, 2002, 01:47:32 PM »

I truly admire the zeal and the fanaticism of the OC Orthodox.

Abdur

   I am sure we all can admire their zeal and courage but must we admire their fanaticism or for that matter, any fanaticism?  Fanaticism, in my experience, has always seemed to breed hatred and backbiting which are surely not admirable qualities and there is a danger in this for those of Faith.

                                                          Peace,
                                                          Brian (Sacramento, Calif)

Can one be too zealous in the defense of apodictic truth?

What of fanatical love? Is it--always-- a harbinger of hate?

Grace,

Abdur
Logged
OrthodoxyOrDeath
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


I'm a llama!


« Reply #28 on: October 31, 2002, 03:21:36 PM »

“Fanatic” or steadfastness to Orthodoxy?

Were the Holy Fathers “fanatic” in their objection to the addition of the words “and the Son” to the Creed? But it is perfectly acceptable for modern “bishops” to declare that these same heretics, whose proportions have reached terrible heights, actually comprise the Church?

I constantly see the rubrics of rationalism openly preached in the name of the Orthodox Church by inadequately converted clergymen and laymen. They have created  a "church" which is far from that of the Fathers and at times even denounce the ethnics and" backward" traditionalists into whose Church these misguided individuals have entered by the back door. They are attracted to Orthodox spirituality but have never left the well-worn path of self-will that leads to heresy. And before they even celebrate their first names-day, feel it is their prerogative to preach Orthodoxy to the Orthodox. Gone for them is the sure guidance of spiritual principles based on centuries of spiritual experience—Holy Tradition.

These converts, former Greek Catholics, and secularized “orthodox”, MUST dismiss traditionalist Orthodox as fanatics and "fringe elements" outside the Church, so they can “faithfully” follow in “good conscience” those who violate every basic Canon and who are openly heretical. How else can we be dismissed?

They have indeed created a new church, born of their own spirit. This “Church” has begun to declare that the Orthodox Church is not the One, True Church, the criterion of Christianity, but that She, in a spirit of deep “love”, accepts the sacraments and Christian ways of others.

And this also characterizes their new church: an inauthentic religion rooted in a deviation from genuine tradition and watered, at times, by an unfortunate spirit of arrogance—a church fueled by hostility towards authentic Orthodox tradition; towards the ethnics who have, however perfectly or imperfectly, guarded it, following the apostasy of the West; and towards all that calls Orthodoxy, not to a witness of worldly officialdom, but spiritual succession and honesty.

Perhaps it is not the alleged “fanaticism” of “Old Calendarist’s” which should be examined here, but new-calendarist listlessness, self-will, pride, and arrogance.
Logged
Aklie Semaet
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


Thank God for my fiancée!


« Reply #29 on: October 31, 2002, 03:31:25 PM »

Thank God for Orthodoxy where there surely are better things to do besides denounce heretics, pews, clean shaven faces and 'modernists' all dayGǪ Wink
Logged

Ethiopia ijochwan wede Egzabiher tezregalech
bripat22
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


Slava Tebie, Boze nas! Slava Tebie


« Reply #30 on: October 31, 2002, 08:17:08 PM »

I truly admire the zeal and the fanaticism of the OC Orthodox.

Abdur


Can one be too zealous in the defense of apodictic truth?

What of fanatical love? Is it--always-- a harbinger of hate?

Grace,

Abdur


 All I am saying it that it is a fine line and we have to watch out that it does not lead us to lack of charity.  I think that is the most important thing.  Hatred and narrow-mindedness can be cloaked as as "Faithfulness" in our fallen natures as can relativism.  This isn't exactly new.
Logged

For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like!-

                            Maggie Smith "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie"
abdur
Guest
« Reply #31 on: November 01, 2002, 01:07:11 AM »

“Fanatic” or steadfastness to Orthodoxy?

Were the Holy Fathers “fanatic” in their objection to the addition of the words “and the Son” to the Creed? But it is perfectly acceptable for modern “bishops” to declare that these same heretics, whose proportions have reached terrible heights, actually comprise the Church?

I constantly see the rubrics of rationalism openly preached in the name of the Orthodox Church by inadequately converted clergymen and laymen. They have created  a "church" which is far from that of the Fathers and at times even denounce the ethnics and" backward" traditionalists into whose Church these misguided individuals have entered by the back door. They are attracted to Orthodox spirituality but have never left the well-worn path of self-will that leads to heresy. And before they even celebrate their first names-day, feel it is their prerogative to preach Orthodoxy to the Orthodox. Gone for them is the sure guidance of spiritual principles based on centuries of spiritual experience—Holy Tradition.

These converts, former Greek Catholics, and secularized “orthodox”, MUST dismiss traditionalist Orthodox as fanatics and "fringe elements" outside the Church, so they can “faithfully” follow in “good conscience” those who violate every basic Canon and who are openly heretical. How else can we be dismissed?

They have indeed created a new church, born of their own spirit. This “Church” has begun to declare that the Orthodox Church is not the One, True Church, the criterion of Christianity, but that She, in a spirit of deep “love”, accepts the sacraments and Christian ways of others.

And this also characterizes their new church: an inauthentic religion rooted in a deviation from genuine tradition and watered, at times, by an unfortunate spirit of arrogance—a church fueled by hostility towards authentic Orthodox tradition; towards the ethnics who have, however perfectly or imperfectly, guarded it, following the apostasy of the West; and towards all that calls Orthodoxy, not to a witness of worldly officialdom, but spiritual succession and honesty.

Perhaps it is not the alleged “fanaticism” of “Old Calendarist’s” which should be examined here, but new-calendarist listlessness, self-will, pride, and arrogance.


"...Within you."

Dr. Alexandre Kalomiros, M.D.

http://users.magnet.gr/stjohn/ark24.htm

Remnant of Grace
Logged
OrthodoxyOrDeath
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


I'm a llama!


« Reply #32 on: November 01, 2002, 09:28:56 AM »


"...Within you."

Dr. Alexandre Kalomiros, M.D.

http://users.magnet.gr/stjohn/ark24.htm

Remnant of Grace


Even as I have been posting here these words have been echoing in my mind.

And hence we arrive at your qoute: "Blessed are the poor in spirit..."

God bless.
Logged
Dan Lauffer
Athanasios
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 188



« Reply #33 on: November 01, 2002, 10:12:59 AM »

Abdur and OoD,

I read the linked article and found it to be beautiful and truthful.  Then I read the bio.  Help me understand how this is any different than any number of Protestants who all claim to know the truth and run off to start new denominations?  

Dan Lauffer
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #34 on: November 01, 2002, 10:37:28 AM »

Abdur and OoD,

I read the linked article and found it to be beautiful and truthful.  Then I read the bio.  Help me understand how this is any different than any number of Protestants who all claim to know the truth and run off to start new denominations?  

Dan Lauffer

Dan, with whom I most often disagree, on this one I'm with you.  Or, for that matter, how is this different from the "Society of St. Josaphat" or the SSPX's Transalpine Redemptorists vis-a-vis the Uniates (Byzantine Catholics), especially in the Ukraine?  Dr. Kalomiros' way of thinking is for the Eastern Orthodox as the thinking of these latter breakaways (schismatics) is for the Byzantines under Rome, except that these latter breakways mostly began under Latin influence, no?  Kalomiros was sincere--however, he too seems to have fallen into "prelest" (spiritual delusion) about the nature of the Church.

Hypo-Ortho  

Post only edited to fix quote problem--anastasios
« Last Edit: May 09, 2003, 12:42:06 AM by anastasios » Logged
abdur
Guest
« Reply #35 on: November 01, 2002, 11:23:35 AM »

Abdur and OoD,

I read the linked article and found it to be beautiful and truthful.  Then I read the bio.  Help me understand how this is any different than any number of Protestants who all claim to know the truth and run off to start new denominations?  

Dan Lauffer[quote/]

Dan, with whom I most often disagree, on this one I'm with you.  Or, for that matter, how is this different from the "Society of St. Josaphat" or the SSPX's Transalpine Redemptorists vis-a-vis the Uniates (Byzantine Catholics), especially in the Ukraine?  Dr. Kalomiros' way of thinking is for the Eastern Orthodox as the thinking of these latter breakaways (schismatics) is for the Byzantines under Rome, except that these latter breakways mostly began under Latin influence, no?  Kalomiros was sincere--however, he too seems to have fallen into "prelest" (spiritual delusion) about the nature of the Church.

Hypo-Ortho  

Gentlemen,

Your analogies are illogical.

1-The protestant and papal or pseudo-papal groups you attempt to use as analogues are heretics. Dr.Kalomiros
never strayed from the True Faith.

2-Prelest? Were the Fathers guilty of prelest when they specifically demanded that the faithful separate themselves from false hierarchs and heretics. In fact, to not separate from heresy and false hierachs is an extreme form of prelest.

Grace,

Abdur
« Last Edit: November 01, 2002, 11:30:17 AM by abdur » Logged
Dan Lauffer
Athanasios
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 188



« Reply #36 on: November 01, 2002, 11:26:51 AM »

Circular argument.

I suppose we could all separate from each other and all claim to be truly Orthodox.  Rationalism would find its true completion in such a scenario.  Endless arguing is the surest mark of a Protestant spirit.

Dan Lauffer
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #37 on: November 01, 2002, 11:35:12 AM »

Endless arguing is the surest mark of a Protestant spirit.
Dan Lauffer

This is another point on which I can agree with you, Dan.  And endless schisms: Is this what Christ wanted for His Holy Body the Church, of which we are supposed to be members?  Ah, but one priest told me there can only be schisms FROM the Church, *never* WITHIN it!  He also told me that we are saved together *IN THE CHURCH*, but when we fall (from Grace), we fall alone!

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
abdur
Guest
« Reply #38 on: November 01, 2002, 11:45:40 AM »

Circular argument.

I suppose we could all separate from each other and all claim to be truly Orthodox.  Rationalism would find its true completion in such a scenario.  Endless arguing is the surest mark of a Protestant spirit.

Dan Lauffer

Then you would say that the Fathers are heretics while I would profess--with all the saints and obedient  to the Holy Spirit--that the Fathers were conduits of the Infallible Truths of the Holy Spirit and to disobey the Fathers is to blaspheme God.  

Grace,

Abdur
« Last Edit: November 01, 2002, 11:56:09 AM by abdur » Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #39 on: November 01, 2002, 12:09:09 PM »

Circular argument.

I suppose we could all separate from each other and all claim to be truly Orthodox.  Rationalism would find its true completion in such a scenario.  Endless arguing is the surest mark of a Protestant spirit.

Dan Lauffer

Then you would say that the Fathers are heretics while I would profess--with all the saints and obedient to the to the Holy Spirit--that the Fathers were conduits of the Infallible Truths of the Holy Spirit and to disobey the Fathers is to blaspheme God.  
Grace,
Abdur

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Never, Abdur, would I say that the holy Fathers are heretics!  NEVER!  But I wouldn't take their words out of context either just to prove a minor point to use to separate myself from the Church, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, or for the sake of endless argumentation.  

Nor would I point to *just one* icon and shout "Heretical!", make a scene, and storm out of the church and set up my own altar and chapel and feel that I was the last remaining remnant of the "True Church."  If that isn't spiritual pride and "prelest," I don't know what is.

And what of true Orthodox bishops in the "Apostolic Succession"?  Are they not also what you call "conduits" of the Holy Spirit when they "rightly divide the word of [Thy] Truth" (Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom) according to Holy Tradition?  Or do we go "bezpopopstvo" (priestless) and consecrate our own Eucharists in our own little chapels and hear our own Confessions as well?

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 01, 2002, 12:36:51 PM »

Quote
And what of true Orthodox bishops in the "Apostolic Succession"?  Are they not also what you call "conduits" of the Holy Spirit when they "rightly divide the word of [Thy] Truth" (Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom) according to Holy Tradition?  Or do we go "bezpopopstvo" (priestless) and consecrate our own Eucharists in our own little chapels and hear our own Confessions as well?

Good point. Here lies a significant difference between most Western vagantes and what one could call sincere Eastern ones. The Western ones depend on Catholic and/or Anglican recognition of the 'validity' of their orders ('lines of succession') and claim to be a part of the church (that they left) even though they're not juridically in it (anymore). Eastern ones claim to be THE Church, period, thus maintaining some sort of Orthodox ecclesiology - at one point the church whence they came was the Church but at some point ceased being so while they continue to be, because they and they alone rightly understand the Fathers, the canons, etc. (Again, really very protestant.)

The priestless Old Believers don't try to have Liturgy. They have tons of dried-out consecrated particles of the Sacrament dating from the 1700s when their priests were dying off and intentionally consecrated lots of particles to leave behind. I think the lay -+-¦-ü-é-¦-¦-+-+-¦ (nastavnik, leader) who leads a priestless congregation gives people Communion in that form on their deathbeds. They may have some form of confession/spiritual direction but AFAIK don't claim to have the Sacrament of Confession. The -+-¦-ü-é-¦-¦-+-+-¦ baptizes people and marries them. He goes by 'Father' too but doesn't claim to be a self-ordained priest.

In the Orthodox view (and Catholic too), the Fathers by themselves are fallible. Orthodox would add that any given Father is no more infallible than the Pope of Rome by himself. It so happens that most of the teachings they held in common were accepted and taught by the infallible Church. Without the living community of the Church to interpret them, the Fathers are as useless as the Bible (sola scriptura, itself unscriptural, is a dead end).
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
abdur
Guest
« Reply #41 on: November 01, 2002, 12:41:42 PM »

Key phrase:

"...true Orthodox Bishops who rightly [preach and practice] the Truth."

BTW: OC Greeks have never "institutionalized" --pardon the pun--priestless sects as the Russian Old Believers have.

However, as you are aware, during the Arian and papal occupations of Orthodox lands, isolated communities of the faithful found themseles without Bishops or Priests or the benefit of the Sacred Mysteries...sometimes for generations.

Maranan-tha!

Abdur
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #42 on: November 01, 2002, 12:43:27 PM »

Quote
And what of true Orthodox bishops in the "Apostolic Succession"?  Are they not also what you call "conduits" of the Holy Spirit when they "rightly divide the word of [Thy] Truth" (Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom) according to Holy Tradition?  Or do we go "bezpopopstvo" (priestless) and consecrate our own Eucharists in our own little chapels and hear our own Confessions as well?

Good point. Here lies a significant difference between most Western vagantes and what one could call sincere Eastern ones. The Western ones depend on Catholic and/or Anglican recognition of the 'validity' of their orders ('lines of succession') and claim to be a part of the church (that they left) even though they're not juridically in it (anymore). Eastern ones claim to be THE Church, period, thus maintaining some sort of Orthodox ecclesiology - at one point the church whence they came was the Church but at some point ceased being so while they continue to be, because they and they alone rightly understand the Fathers, the canons, etc. (Again, really very protestant.)
<snip>

In the Orthodox view (and Catholic too), the Fathers by themselves are fallible. Orthodox would add that any given Father is no more infallible than the Pope of Rome by himself. It so happens that most of the teachings they held in common were accepted and taught by the infallible Church. Without the living community of the Church to interpret them, the Fathers are as useless as the Bible (sola scriptura, itself unscriptural, is a dead end).

Serge, you say it so much better than this old man! Wink
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #43 on: November 01, 2002, 12:53:26 PM »

Key phrase:

"...true Orthodox Bishops who rightly [preach and practice] the Truth."
<snip>
However, as you are aware, during the Arian and papal occupations of Orthodox lands, isolated communities of the faithful found themseles without Bishops or Priests or the benefit of the Sacred Mysteries...sometimes for generations.
Abdur

Abdur, is THAT what we're discussing?  Isolated communities of the Faithful?  Or those who live in traditional Orthodox countries or in other countries where religion may be freely practiced?  No excuse to go without the Holy Mysteries when they are made available to us for our spiritual nourishment, for healing of soul and body.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
abdur
Guest
« Reply #44 on: November 01, 2002, 02:07:42 PM »

For me the issue is purity and separation from nominalism (or worse!).

It's about showing Muslims--concretely--that Holy Orthodoxy is not the third rate, nominalistic, and effeminate--"a religion for neurotic old women"--faith too many believe it to be.

It's about remaining undefiled--but only for the love of Christ.

Grace,
Abdur

Logged
Tags: roman catholic schism traditionalist vagante Old Believers 
Pages: 1 2 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.141 seconds with 72 queries.