OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 29, 2014, 05:32:45 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 21102 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These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.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: 2,522


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

Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,433


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


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

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


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

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
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,433


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


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

Nice, Aklie, nice!
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
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: 2,522


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

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: 2,522


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

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: 2,522


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

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
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,433


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


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

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


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

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: 10,440


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

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
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: 2,522


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

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
OrthodoxyOrDeath
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


I'm a llama!


« Reply #45 on: November 01, 2002, 06:00:57 PM »

http://holyorthodoxy.tripod.com/morefathers.html
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #46 on: November 02, 2002, 03:10:32 PM »

Let me, the outsider to Orthodoxy, who is as everyone knows studying at St. Vladimir's and discerning the call to Orthodoxy, chime in.

I have respect for Old Calendarists who are not in union with the rest of Orthodoxy. For the most part they are not fanatics who think they know what's best, they are simply people trying to live Orthopraxis the way they were taught.

I still think they're wrong though.

In 1923 a Pan-Orthodox synod decreed that individual Churches can adopt the Revised Julian Calendar (aka New).  Some argue that this was not an ecumenical council; well I would argue there can never be another ecumenical council unless, God willing, somehow we can establish an emperor in Constantinople again (yes, I would be in favor of that!)  Being unlikely, however, we should accept that a pan-Orthodox Synod is basically the same thing.

Now any council, ecumenical or not, does not automatically become law once promulgated.  No, it must be received.

It seems that many groups do not accept the Pan-Orthodox Synod of 1923, for various reasons.  So they have a right to argue against it (just like its partisans may argue for it!)

Should they break communion over it? No!  They should work from the inside for change.

The Holy Fathers did at some times refuse communion to people they believed to be wrong.  Or they refused to commune with their patriarch.  But they did NOT set up parallel Churches.  This is the work of Satan.

Parallel Church"ism" is EVIL.  Many get mad at my Church, the Eastern Catholic Church, for being a "parallel" Church.  But creating your own Church is the SAME thing.  Some "Uniate" Churches did what they did for principles; some Orthodox Old Calendarists did what they did for principles; the Old Believers did what they did for principles. Principles, however, can be wrong.

Therefore, for the benefit of the doubt, stay in communion with the others and work from the inside.

What fascinates me is the Old Believer case.  Did you all know that a mere 150 years before Nikon changed the books, the books had been changed when St. Sabbas's typikon was accepted by the Metropolitan of Moscow? The people did not fight then. It was only when Nikon and his posse tried to force it the wrong way--inorganically--that the problem arose.

Let's separate "modernism" from the calendar issue.  A calendar is a human creation plain and simple.  Being a modernist IS a heresy.  There are modernist Old Calendarists, believe it or not. Dr. Kolomiros wrote an article called the "Eternal Will" where he defends evolution, which some here might believe to be heresy!

There are many anti-modernist New Calendarists, as well.

That they liberals tend to be New Calendarists is peripheral to the issue.  Many liberals and communists infiltrated the Moscow Patriarchate, but that doesn't mean Old Calendarist = communist friend!  Sure ROCOR broke away from them for this, but it was only in 1983 that ROCOR issued its "encyclical against ecumenism"!

I am sorry to have rambled so much.  As someone who wants to join the Orthodox Church, it breaks my heart to see it divided.

In Christ,

anastasios
« Last Edit: November 03, 2002, 02:13:12 AM by anastasios » Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,335


« Reply #47 on: November 02, 2002, 06:08:22 PM »

anastasios

Quote
Let me, the outsider to Orthodoxy, who is as everyone knows studying at St. Vladimir's and discerning the call to Orthodoxy, chime in.

I'll also chime in, and most likely delete the forum from my favorites afterwards for a few months to resist posting again (I seem to have little will power in this area)

Quote
In 1922 a PAN ORTHODOX synod decreed that individual Churches can adopt the Revised Julian Calendar (aka New).

It's about pan and orthodox as the Council of Florence was. A few corrupt bishops sitting around trying to figure out how to fit in with the ecumenical movement does NOT make a valid council that is authoritative for the entire Church. The calendar change was purely a ploy to bring about unity with other Christians: not only has it failed in its ecumenical goals, but it caused division Orthodoxy itself! Tell me, at this "pan orthodox" council, how many Local Churches were represented? There weren't even enough bishops TOTAL to account for the Local Churches, even if all the Local Orthodox Churches only sent 1 bishop. And I assure you, must like Constantinople's CURRENT attempt to organize an ecumenical council (yes, your read that right), Constantinple has no wish to make it either ecumenical or pan-orthodox. Such collegiality would too easily destroy it's wordly ambitions.

Quote
Some argue that this was not an ecumenical council; well I would argue there can never be another ecumenical council unless, God willing, somehow we can establish an emperor in Constantinople again (yes, I would be in favor of that!)  Being unlikely, however, we should accept that a pan-Orthodox Synod is basically the same thing.

Untrue. There have been pre-councils for decades now trying to organize what questions would be dealt with, who would attend, etc. the next ecumenical council. You act as if the God-man, and His theanthropic body, the Church, has been hogtied by historical contexts! The problem with calling an ecumenical council has more to do with the freedom of various Christian groups to participate in such a council (due to problems such as Communism, Muslim Rule, etc.). An Ecumenical Council could most likely now be held if needed, though any council now would unfortunately be nothing more than a "Robber Council" as Constantinople has been scheming for decades to add to it's weight in World Orthodoxy (even as it's actual flock that it directly rules over shrinks to nothing). Some of this (up through the late 1970's) is dealt with in an article by my Patron Saint.

Quote
Now any council, ecumenical or not, does not automatically become law once promulgated.  No, it must be received.

Councils that were called "Ecumenical" didn't necessarily become Law once they were written, either. Rome took CENTURIES sometimes to formally accept certain councils: that was never a reason given for breaking communion with them. Some councils claimed to be Ecumenical, and indeed had many hundred bishops attending, including representatives from many of the Local Churches, but these councils were not accepted by the Church at large.

Quote
Should they break communion over it? No!  They should work from the inside for change.

Have you read the relevant quotes and historical contexts that Old Calendarists quote? I wonder if you would use the same word if speaking to one of Orthodoxy's saints who did choose to break commmunion. Either way, many Old Calendarists do not see themselves as being seperate Churches, but only as "walled off": same Church, different rooms (since one room is perceived to be infected). A number of saints speak explicitly AGAINST the "work from the inside" method (which is why I'm leaving the Antichians, and relocating to an area where there is a more traditionalist Church).

Quote
The Holy Fathers did at some times refuse communion to people they believed to be wrong.  Or they refused to commune with their patriarch.  But they did NOT set up parallel Churches. ...Therefore, for the benefit of the doubt, stay in communion with the others and work from the inside.

What did Mark of Ephesus do? That's what we're doing. It has nothing to do with parallel Churches or questioning the validity of sacraments. I know ROCOR, for instance, (in spite of the rhetoric usually heard) does not consider OCA, Greek, etc. sacraments invalid. They have NOT set themselves up as "THE true Church" and a seperate Church.

Quote
Let's separate "modernism" from the calendar issue.  A calendar is a human creation plain and simple.  Being a modernist IS a heresy.  

But how can we, when the very reason for the calendar change was ecumenical and modernistic in nature? What you are saying here is the same kind of minimalistic attitude that led them to originally change calendars. "It's just man made, we don't really need it". And now you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Things done in the Church are many time THEANTHROPIC, both divine and human. Calendars and fasting rules and standing during worship are NOT mad made rules, they are God-man given guidelines for our salvation. We start chucking these one by one, and pretty soon you have very little except a lot of fancy language and people sitting in pews 1 day a week for a little over an hour. [sarcasm]Wow, what an ascetic, holy fathers drive, God-centered, faith![/sarcasm]

Quote
There are many anti-modernist New Calendarists, as well.

Yeah, I'm one of them Smiley  ...for a few more months anyway.

Quote
Sure ROCOR broke away from them for this, but it was only in 1983 that ROCOR issued its "encyclical against ecumenism"!

This is like attacking the iconodules because they didn't have an authoritative ecumenical council until 787! What, as soon as the error pops up it must be denounced? That's not Orthodox at all. Haven't you read in those "moderate" (as opposed to conservative) books that you read that heresies usually take a while to form, and are discussed a while, before they are condemned? Isn't this a pattern that Jaroslav Pelikan identified in his five volume set on Catholic Tradition?

First you attack old caledarists for not "fighting from within" and giving the benefit of the doubt. But then even in cases where they DO try to give the benefit of the doubt, and hold of on anathemas, you still attack them! The anathemas only effect those in ROCOR anyway, and believe me, it wasn't saying anything new, it was only giving voice at a synod to what it had already believed for decades. ROCOR was at one time in communion with many of the Local Orthodox bodies in the world. Relations starting falling apart though as these churches embraced ecumenism more and more, until ROCOR was left being in communion with only a couple local Churches. This happened before 1983, and anyone who thinks ROCOR sat on it's hands on this issue until they met at the synod are mistaken.

Also, ROCOR didn't break away from anyone, they were organized under canonical principles set down by their Patriarch while his free-will was still being freely recognized, and Constantinople and many other local Churches recognized ROCOR--not as a break away Church, but as a part of the Church nonetheless. ROCOR had as much right to exist as the American Metropolia did: probably more. And guess what... no Orthodox Church, not serbia, not constantinople, no one, had a problem with ROCOR's existence until they started speaking out more and more vocally about ecumenism. SCOBA even offered ROCOR the chance to participate as a full member. You're "work from the inside" method wasn't working, so they raised their voices: this brought alienation and the beginnings of a subtle rhetoric that gets told by the "official" Churches to young fellows like you and me.

Quote
I am sorry to have rambled so much.  As someone who wants to join the Orthodox Church, it breaks my heart to see it divided.

There is as much "division" (speaking administratively) today as there was in the 4th century, the 8th century, etc. The true Church, the theanthropic body of Christ, is one today, though, just as it always has been. As one saint said, "There must be heretics among you," and as another saint said. "There will always be tares in the Church, but we will not root them up, the Lord will do this".

Forgive me, I won't return for a while, I can't seem to refrain from posting when I read this board. My apologies.
Logged

.
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #48 on: November 02, 2002, 10:05:15 PM »

Quote
In 1922 a PAN ORTHODOX synod decreed that individual Churches can adopt the Revised Julian Calendar (aka New).  Some argue that this was not an ecumenical council; well I would argue there can never be another ecumenical council unless, God willing, somehow we can establish an emperor in Constantinople again (yes, I would be in favor of that!)  Being unlikely, however, we should accept that a pan-Orthodox Synod is basically the same thing.

Pan-Orthodox?  Not the last time I checked.  As for "basically the same thing"...well is it the same thing, or not?  "Basically"?

This gathering was neither "pan-Orthodox" nor (certainly not!) "oecumenical."  If you want to speak in terms of "basics", then I think it can also be fairly said that the "revised Julian Calendar" is "basically" the anathematized papal calendar, an anathema which has acquired "pan-Orthodox" status.

Quote
Now any council, ecumenical or not, does not automatically become law once promulgated.  No, it must be received.

It seems that many groups do not accept the Pan-Orthodox Synod of 1922, for various reasons.  So they have a right to argue against it (just like its partisans may argue for it!)

Should they break communion over it? No!  They should work from the inside for change.

But what if this innovation is being imposed upon them, even by force (as was done in Greece, when the state was enlisted to help squash opposition)?  Indeed, what if this was not simply an anti-canonical innovation, but also one motivated by a false-ecumenism (at the very least, as far as the resisters were concerned)?  Both of those put together, provide more than enough reason to cease relations.  I see much talk in this forum about "canonicity", often in the name of defending that which is specifically non-canonical.

Quote
The Holy Fathers did at some times refuse communion to people they believed to be wrong.  Or they refused to commune with their patriarch.  But they did NOT set up parallel Churches.  This is the work of Satan.

If they utterly did not recognize the validity of the heresairchs, they certainly didn't care whose "canonical territory" they operated in.  As for separating and establishing a synod, I agree with the (for now) cautious approach of Metropolitan Cyprian and the T.O.C. (who are in communion with ROCOR) - they have not established parallel diocese, but rather diocese of their own elsewhere.

Quote
Parallel Church"ism" is EVIL.  Many get mad at my Church, the Eastern Catholic Church, for being a "parallel" Church.  But creating your own Church is the SAME thing.  Some "Uniate" Churches did what they did for principles; some Orthodox Old Calendarists did what they did for principles; the Old Believers did what they did for principles. Principles, however, can be wrong.

I didn't know you were an E.C.  I don't even see how you can be upset with anyone in particular in Orthodoxy... strictly speaking, are not we all wrong?

Quote
That they liberals tend to be New Calendarists is peripheral to the issue.  Many liberals and communists infiltrated the Moscow Patriarchate, but that doesn't mean Old Calendarist = communist friend!  Sure ROCOR broke away from them for this, but it was only in 1983 that ROCOR issued its "encyclical against ecumenism"!

Yes, and if things continue as they are (though it looks like, thank God, that there is momentum in the other direction), there would be further encyclicals/anathemas being issued, I'm sure.  I'm not sure how the '83 is relevent.

Seraphim
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #49 on: November 02, 2002, 11:37:07 PM »

>>>As for "basically the same thing"...well is it the same thing, or not?  "Basically"?

It can't be the same thing in the sense that there is no empire, no emperor, no eikoumene.  Functionally, it is the same thing.

>>>This gathering was neither "pan-Orthodox" nor (certainly not!) "oecumenical."  If you want to speak in terms of "basics", then I think it can also be fairly said that the "revised Julian Calendar" is "basically" the anathematized papal calendar, an anathema which has acquired "pan-Orthodox" status.

How can a calendar be anathamatized? And are you saying the Church has no authority to reverse a decision concerned with discipline?

>>>I didn't know you were an E.C.  I don't even see how you can be upset with anyone in particular in Orthodoxy... strictly speaking, are not we all wrong?

At the present time I am an E.C. due to circumstances.  When I was a Protestant, I met a E.C. priest who guided me into that Church.  I later discovered Orthodoxy but could not discern between the two.  I have been contemplating this for 3.5 years now.  My heart is with the Orthodox, but I still have a few things lingering in my mind... also my wife is cool on converting, at least at this time.  I will not convert without her unless it becomes obvious to me that she is never going to do it. Otherwise I might squander the chance to bring her over with me.  I don't understand the rest of your statement, so please clarify.

>>>Yes, and if things continue as they are (though it looks like, thank God, that there is momentum in the other direction), there would be further encyclicals/anathemas being issued, I'm sure.  I'm not sure how the '83 is relevent.

My point (which was clouded) is that ROCOR itself did not become the big time anti-ecumenist group it is today until the late 1970's.  Why, Met. Anthony thought that Anglicans could be received as a whole economically, and didn't he at first go to the Patriarch of Constantinople for help?  Also, it is my understanding that the Bulgarian Excharcate, formerly part of ROCOR, now part of the OCA, was entirely new Calendar when it was in ROCOR.  Furthermore, ROCOR had that Bishop James character who had his American mission and was New Calendar, clean-shaven, etc.  It doesn't matter if one is Old or New Calendar.  What matters is if you are dedicated to Orthodoxy, the truth, and reject modernism (the New Calendar NOT being modernism).

In Christ,

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #50 on: November 03, 2002, 02:40:33 AM »

Dear Friends,

I researched the issue of the 1923 Pan-Orthodox Congress (I won't call it a Synod anymore because the representatives called it a Congress, but Patriarch Meletios argues that Synod and Congress have the same root, but this Congress was meant to be non-binding [more on that later]) further today (although I will have to go to the library here at St. Vladimir's Seminary on Monday and do some heavy research on this topic which interests me).

It seems that Patriarch Meletios issued the invitation to a Pan-Orthodox Congress to the heads of all the autocephalous Churches on February 23, 1923.  If I had a scanner right now, I would scan in his letters from this book.  Does anyone have a scanner and the texts of his letters, which I am reading in Vested In Grace edited by Fr. Joseph Allen, page 171 onwards?

In his first letter he notes:

1) The need for a decision from the entire Church on the Calendar issue, since most Eastern European nations including Greece had just switched the civil calendar to the Gregorian;

2) The main concern of Meletios is not some sort of "evil ecumenistic leanings" but rather the fact that the Church is the major component of Orthodox society, and having its calendar out of sync with the state creates problems for the faithful;

3) Inter-Christian unity is an offshoot of #2;

4) The final reason cited is that he is concerned with the large number of Americans who could not celebrate their religious feasts because they had to work on those days, which was creating great distress for the faithful of America.

The Churches of Serbia, Romania, Greece, and Cyprus responded.  Antioch and Jerusalem declined to participate, and Alexandria deferred the matter.  In response to this, the author of Chapter 4 in Allen's book, Patrick Viscuso argues that the reason why Serbia and Romania responded by Antioch and Jerusalem did not could be that there were substantial Orthodox populations using the Gregorian Calendar in a civil context in the former, with hardly any in the later.

The second reason is that Constantinople had worked with Serbia and Romania to establish unified patriarchates, and their responses can be seen in this political context as a way to maintain their working relationship. (both arguments on p. 178.)

There were also two Russian representatives: Archbishops Aleksandr Nemolovski and Anastasii Gribanovski (later head of the ROCOR!)  No offical letter was sent to the patriarch in Moscow, due to the political situation.  Note: both Archbishops SIGNED THE ACTS OF THE CONGRESS OF 1923 (p. 182).  So basically, we have the second head of ROCOR approving of the Congress that approved the introduction of the Revised Julian (Gregorian) Calendar. Very interesting.

The Congress did not see its decisions as obligatory.  They were not trying to legislate a forced change, but rather saw themselves as allowing a change based on necesity, which was then to be sent out to the other autocephalous heads for their commentary, pending the result of an ecumenical council.

Obviously that last point contradicts what I said that an ecumenical council cannot happen again.  It seems the hierarchs of the 1923 Congress planned on one, and I am aware of the 30+ years of planning for the "new" ecumenical Council.  But I still stand by my assertion that one really cannot have an ecumenical council again, unless one adopts the Roman Catholic understanding of ecumenical council.  We wouldn't want to do that, right :-)

Anyway, I hope this shows that the Congress of 1923 was not, as one poster suggested, a convocation of evil men trying to be syncretistic ecumenist heretics, but rather to meet the need of the people.  The results are mixed, so I would argue that it might be nice to have another Synod address the Calendar issue.

In Christ,

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #51 on: November 03, 2002, 02:42:50 AM »

anastasios
Quote
Now any council, ecumenical or not, does not automatically become law once promulgated.  No, it must be received.

Councils that were called "Ecumenical" didn't necessarily become Law once they were written, either. Rome took CENTURIES sometimes to formally accept certain councils: that was never a reason given for breaking communion with them. Some councils claimed to be Ecumenical, and indeed had many hundred bishops attending, including representatives from many of the Local Churches, but these councils were not accepted by the Church at large.

Right, that's exactly what I said, Paradosis.  "now any council, ecumenical or not..."

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
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 #52 on: November 03, 2002, 08:34:04 AM »

Glory to Jesus Christ!
How can a calendar be anathamatized?

Act 7 of the Council of Constantinople (20 Nov 1583 o.s.):

"He that does not follow the customs of the Church  and what the seven Ecumenical Councils have  decreed concerning the Holy Pascha and the calendar  which have been laid down as law for us to follow,  but desire to follow the Gregorian Paschalion and  calendar, let him, as well as the impious astronomers who contradicts all the decrees of the  Holy Councils and wishes to change and weaken them,  be anathema, separated from the Church of Christ and the assembly of the Faithful."

I understand that an anathema against the calendar was also issued in 1587 and 1593. I have no problem with changing of minds, but I don't see how one can change their minds on something anathemized.

My big problems is that it ruins the stichera on many days, among other things mentioned here. 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: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #53 on: November 03, 2002, 08:55:45 AM »

Calendars and stichera are learning aids, not the learning. Again, the anathemas on the new calendar come from councils that are not ecumenical.

Thanks, anastasios, for the info that the future first hierarch of ROCOR signed off on the new-calendar option, proving it's a dogmatic nonissue in Orthodoxy. (That and the world's biggest Orthodox Church, the Church of Russia, which is old-calendar, is in communion with the new-calendar Churches.) Oh, and a priest I know has seconded an assertion made elsewhere that there are ROCOR congregations that are new-calendar. Rare but it can happen.

How can the calendar be set in stone when the date for the vernal equinox is 13+ days behind the real event?

It's a manmade thing, part of the rite traditionally and a part of some cultures (such as Russian religious culture), kind of fun because it's different to the Anglo-American norm most of us know, but not a matter of my faith.
Logged

Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #54 on: November 03, 2002, 02:00:52 PM »

The question I have for Old Calendarist's is this:

How can a calendar possibly affect your salvation? Especially if our God is not bound by our earth time.


Answer this and I will be happy.


Bobby
Logged
abdur
Guest
« Reply #55 on: November 03, 2002, 08:13:51 PM »

The question I have for Old Calendarist's is this:

How can a calendar possibly affect your salvation? Especially if our God is not bound by our earth time.


Answer this and I will be happy.


Bobby

Anything--including the O.C.--that helps separate us from heresy and heretics is salvific.

Abdur
Logged
OrthodoxyOrDeath
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


I'm a llama!


« Reply #56 on: November 03, 2002, 11:05:40 PM »

Anastasios, as long as you are seeking to research this topic a little further, which is commendable, I recommend you research sources outside the new-calendar SVS. I believe this most interesting article was written by the Etna folks.

http://orthodox.truepath.com/articles/orthodox/holytradition/CalendarChange.htm


Bobby,

Your question reeks with the smell of modernism. If you ever wondered what modernism smells like, take a big whiff.

All of our efforts, labors, thoughts, and deeds are for nothing if they are not for God. For example, why is it “necessary” for a priest to have a long beard? It grows on his face unkempt since he is dead to the world. Living the life of Christ he is not concerned with comfort or efficiency. It represents the splendor of freedom he has achieved in Christ and the breaking of the bonds of slavery to this world. A priest on the other hand who shaves his beard off or into a neat little design, or trims it, is concerned with his appearance and acceptance; or perhaps he is concerned with his comfort in this life. He has, in essence professed his bond of slavery to this world.

So to ask if a beard on a priest is “necessary” is to seek after “the bare minimum” for salvation. This is the Western Christian minimalist approach. They ask “what is the bare minimum so as to not be condemned”, whereas the Orthodox ask, “how can I be saved the most”.

So what was the motivation behind the new-calendar? I think that is clear enough - syncretism. Syncretism was their motivation to leave the Church, and our motivation to declare them so.

The beginning of this syncretism was only marked with the new-calendar. It has since shown itself in even more dreadful ways, and will likely continue on to the destruction of millions of more souls.

The church calendar is like an icon. Until the image of the Lord is painted on a piece of wood, the wood is nothing but an ordinary plank. It would be no sin to cut it up with an axe and cast into the fire. But the moment the icon of Christ is written on that plank, it becomes a sacred object for the blessing of the faithful. Through the grace of the One whose image is depicted, it becomes wonder-working . Thus, the calendar may be called "Julian" only up to the moment when the Church inscribed the Paschal services and the Great Typicon on it. From that moment on, it becomes an icon of time, and through which the liturgical practice of the Church transforms time into eternity.

Yes, the calendar can be changed, and in fact has always been changed, little by little. But these changes were always for the building up of the Church and for the edification and unity of the faithful. The sad events of this past century, can be judged by it own fruits. The new-calendar has essentially destroyed the Typicon, has left combinations of holy days never dreamed of, is misses other holy days altogether, it decidedly breaks much of the visible unity of local, regional, and global “orthodox” churches, and has left untold number of faithful dead. Tell me, what kind of fruits are these and what does it say of the guiding spirit of it’s founders and those who have since followed?

So to answer your question about how ineffectual one can make the Orthodox Church before it effects your salvation, I ask, why are you seeking to overthrow in an instant what the Holy Spirit has guided us to all this time? Do you think God made a mistake?
Logged
Dan Lauffer
Athanasios
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 188



« Reply #57 on: November 04, 2002, 12:33:26 AM »

OoD,

Do you keep an unkempt beard?

Dan Lauffer Huh
Logged
abdur
Guest
« Reply #58 on: November 04, 2002, 09:08:25 AM »

OoD,

Do you keep an unkempt beard?

Dan Lauffer Huh

Do you mean like Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn?

Abdur
Logged
Dan Lauffer
Athanasios
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 188



« Reply #59 on: November 04, 2002, 09:38:06 AM »

Yes.  I enjoy wearing a beard.  I have since I was in my 20's.  Now I'm in my 50's.  I hadn't thought about its connection with holiness until a few years ago.  I do keep it trimmed.  Should I let it go?  Does OoD have an unkempt beard, which seems preferable to a trimmed one, if OoD is correct?

Dan Lauffer
Logged
OrthodoxyOrDeath
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


I'm a llama!


« Reply #60 on: November 04, 2002, 10:28:56 AM »

Dan,

I often see "dead heads" riding Harley’s who have beards down to their knees. This does not make them holy however; it is just an indication of who they are.

And of course I was talking about priests, who are icons of Christ and wear Christ's robes. You do not sees icons of Christ with a mustache do you?

To appear to hold myself up high or indicate my own failed holiness is not germane to the issue, and I would prefer not to be in that position.
Logged
Dan Lauffer
Athanasios
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 188



« Reply #61 on: November 04, 2002, 10:56:53 AM »

OoD,

I'm thankful for your humility.  However, in Eastern thought aren't we all to be icons of Christ?  I thought "in persona Christi" as an attribute of the priest only was a western idea.  Would you, by wearing an unkempt beard, be an icon of an old Harley rider?

Dan Lauffer
Logged
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 #62 on: November 04, 2002, 11:06:11 AM »

[And of course I was talking about priests, who are icons of Christ and wear Christ's robes. You do not sees icons of Christ with a mustache do you?]

Neither do I see Icons of Christ where He is pictured with an unkept beard down to his navel.
It's not what is on the face.  It's what is in the heart that counts.

Orthodoc
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.
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #63 on: November 04, 2002, 11:28:24 AM »

<snip>
Neither do I see Icons of Christ where He is pictured with an unkept beard down to his navel.
It's not what is on the face.  It's what is in the heart that counts.
Orthodoc

Quite true, Orthodoc.  

I have an unkept beard, not down to my navel and not even nearly so, but it is rather scraggly, even though very full (and very white!).  But if I had my druthers, it would be a very neatly trimmed beard.  Only the fact that I have weakness and very poor coordination in my right hand due to a permanent injury in my right arm (ruptured biceps muscle) and that I happen to be right-handed to boot keeps me humble with a full, untrimmed beard.  This is a blessing in disguise.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
OrthodoxyOrDeath
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


I'm a llama!


« Reply #64 on: November 04, 2002, 01:42:10 PM »

Neither do I see Icons of Christ where He is pictured with an unkept beard down to his navel. It's not what is on the face.  It's what is in the heart that counts.

To state a fundamental Christian belief as if I was trying to contradict it is not very useful.

If you wish to use the part of my post where I mention "beards" as an escape from the main thrust of my point then let's all just say so and stop this useless debate about beards.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2002, 01:49:03 PM by OrthodoxyOrDeath » Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #65 on: November 04, 2002, 02:04:02 PM »

Neither do I see Icons of Christ where He is pictured with an unkept beard down to his navel. It's not what is on the face.  It's what is in the heart that counts.

To state a fundamental Christian belief as if I was trying to contradict it is not very useful.

If you wish to use the part of my post where I mention "beards" as an escape from the main thrust of my point then let's all just say so and stop this useless debate about beards.


OoD,

Wasn't it you who brought up the beards bit in a reply to Bobby in the first place?  Roll Eyes

Hypo-Ortho

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

Posts: 188



« Reply #66 on: November 04, 2002, 05:08:22 PM »

Friends,

'However, in Eastern thought aren't we all to be icons of Christ?  I thought "in persona Christi" as an attribute of the priest only was a western idea.  Would you, by wearing an unkempt beard, be an icon of an old Harley rider?"


I see OoD getting a bit testing over our very mild chiding of him.  I guess we all get consumed with self as OoD has done and then can get defensive when called for it.  So, I won't chide him longer but as a serious question.

Am I right in my assumption about Eastern thought? Don't we kiss the body of the deceased in part because the body is an icon of one who is "in Christ"?  Am I correct in my assumption that "in persona Christi" as applied to the priest only is a rather Western thought?

Dan Lauffer
Logged
OrthodoxyOrDeath
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


I'm a llama!


« Reply #67 on: November 04, 2002, 06:13:53 PM »

If I am at all “testy”, it is because I have not yet seen an honest response to everyone’s aching conscience on the calendar issue. How come people cannot answer honestly to questions such as this, but they would rather avoid it with intellectual sand-in-the eyes?

Yes, we are all “icons of Christ”, which if you read the link posted by Abdur “GǪWithin You”, you will see a wonderful exposition of thought regarding this.

For a complete answer on the beard issue, see...

http://www.holycross-hermitage.com/pages/Orthodox_Life/longhair.htm
« Last Edit: November 04, 2002, 06:18:29 PM by OrthodoxyOrDeath » 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 #68 on: November 04, 2002, 06:31:18 PM »

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear OOD, lest you think no one cares of what you post, I am finding the links you have provided quite interesting and the latest explained the long hair idea that I was unsure of in  its origin. Thank you.

Likewise a post on why long beards was recently posted elsewhere and can be found here. God Bless!
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
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 #69 on: November 04, 2002, 06:33:27 PM »

[If I am at all “testy”, it is because I have not yet seen an honest response to everyone’s aching conscience on the calendar issue. How come people cannot answer honestly to questions such as this, but they would rather avoid it with intellectual sand-in-the eyes?]

Maybe its because so many of us find your priorities pharisaical.  Over emphasis on such matters as beards and calendars over the commandments of Christ to love one another, to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, comfort the sick, and the like will be the questions we will be asked on that judgement day.  Not  what calendar we were under or the length or either our, or our spiritual fathers, beard.  And, because we believe that way, we see it as a non issue.
And would rather discuss more spiritual issues.


For some one who complains about my comments on beards, it seems like you are the one who can't seem the to let the issue alone.

Orthodoc
« Last Edit: November 04, 2002, 06:37:18 PM by Orthodoc » 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.
Dan Lauffer
Athanasios
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 188



« Reply #70 on: November 04, 2002, 07:09:56 PM »

For what it's worth...I think beards are a fine mark of piety.  I hope more of our priests and people wear them, except for the women.  OoD may have a point about old calendar vs. new calendar but at best it seems a minor one.  

Pharisees were/are well intentioned.  I'm not inclined to be too rough on them.  But then, Jesus was rather rough with them.  What shall we do? Huh

Dan Lauffer
Logged
OrthodoxyOrDeath
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


I'm a llama!


« Reply #71 on: November 04, 2002, 09:02:14 PM »

There is nothing I can say in response to groundless slanders. You have nothing but my prayers.

I will say however that feeding the hungry and caring for the sick is a useless endeavor without the Church and Christ who said,” GǪwithout Me you can do nothing.”  John 15:5

Is your position then that it is ok to have a heretic syncretist bishop who is Graceless, but as long as we blindly do good works we are saved? I am sure you don’t.

Therefore, every point which shows your “bishops” to be a den heretics is a worthy discussion. If my position is so assailable, then why not simply answer this:

If the calendar is changeable by a committee of a few, then would it be ok, when the astronomically perfect “World Calendar” is enacted with equal days in each month, to be accepted by your organization, even though it would disrupt the Typicon further, cause priests to be martyred, bypass feast days and fasts, and cause divisions and disunity? And if “astronomical accuracy” is not a sufficient reason, then what would be a good reason to go ahead with such a thing?

Also, if the canons of an Ecumenical Synod was enough to have even these heretics back down on the date of Pascha, the center pin of everything, why are they only now openly talking about changing the date of Pascha? Do you think the force of these canons have been marginalized over time and with the now calloused "faithful"?

Of course the calendar is just the beginning. We will ultimatley end up discussing why it is folly for Dan Laufer to join the new calendarists since the new calendarsist have declared them to already be in the same organization.

« Last Edit: November 04, 2002, 09:42:03 PM by OrthodoxyOrDeath » Logged
Aklie Semaet
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


Thank God for my fiancée!


« Reply #72 on: November 05, 2002, 02:57:51 AM »

My goodness,

Thank God for Orthodoxy; where we have the Ethiopians and the Copts on the ‘Old’ Calendar, the Indians on the New Calendar and I am not sure where the Armenians and Syrians stand but in all this diversity we are still one Church and serve one God.

OoD, in all due respect you answered a question with a question. Bobby asked you what does the Calander have to do with salvation and all you did was answer with another question in addition to accusing Bobby’s question of smelling like modernism.  

Orthodoc,

Very, very, very well stated post!
Logged

Ethiopia ijochwan wede Egzabiher tezregalech
Dan Lauffer
Athanasios
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 188



« Reply #73 on: November 05, 2002, 09:02:01 AM »

I'm sure this issue has some relative  importance within Orthodoxy outside of communion with Rome but I've never heard it discussed within Orthodoxy in communion with Rome.  I wonder if the calendar issue belongs someplace else?

What do you think, Anastasios?

Dan Lauffer
Logged
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 #74 on: November 05, 2002, 10:44:56 AM »

[I'm sure this issue has some relative  importance within Orthodoxy outside of communion with Rome but I've never heard it discussed within Orthodoxy in communion with Rome.  I wonder if the calendar issue belongs someplace else?]

Dan:  The term 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome' is, as you already know, is an oxymoron.  Anyone who uses it shows a complete lack of understanding of what it means to be an Orthodox Catholic.  For it basis Orthodoxy primarily on its ritual and places its theology and doctrine as second in importance.  Nothing can be further from the truth.

You, as a member of the Byzantine Catholic Church, share similiar  (though Latinized) ritual practices to the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.  But thats where the similiarities end.  Because, as you are also aware, you are more than just 'In Communion With' Rome but also by the very fact of that 'Communion' under Rome's authority.  Whether you admit it or not.  And, by that very communon, are required to adhere to the both the theology and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.  Only exception that I am aware of is the 'Fillioque', which, at times throughout the 400+ history of the creation of your church has changed to suit the times and circumstances.

So, unless you can prove to us that the Roman Catholic Church has Protestanized its administrative structure to the extent,  that to be 'In Communion With' it does not mean to be under its authority.  Or, that any of its so called 'sui juris' churches have the freedom to accept and identify their own doctrine and theology without either the approval of, or knowledge of, the Pope.  And  any SUI JURIS CHURCH  can elect and consecrate its head without being appointed by the Pope himself (1) or be subverient to that very Pope (2,3) ... Then accord us the same respect  you demand from us in regards to the name Rome itself gave you (Uniate),  by coming here and purposely using terminology such as 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome' which  we find demeaning in this, an Orthodox Catholic website.

CODE OF CANONS OF THE EASTERN CHURCHES:

(1) UNDER SUI JURIS cHURCHES -

Canon 135:  A metropolitan church SUI JURIS is presided over by a metropolitan of a determined see  WHO HAS BEEN APPOINTED BY THE ROMAN PONTIFF and is assisted by a council of hierachs in accord with the norm of law.
IT IS SOLEY FOR THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH TO ELECT, MODIFY, AND SUPPRESS METROPOLITAN CHURCHES SUI JURIS AS WELL AS TO DEFINE THEIR TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES.

THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH -

(2)  Canon 45:  By virtue of the office (mumus), the Roman Pontiff not only posses power over the ENTIRE CHURCH but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and their groupings.  Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops posses in the eparchy entrusted to their care.

(3)  The participation of patriarchs and of all the other hierachs who preside over Churches SUI JURIS in the synod of bishops is regulated by special norms ESTABLISHED BY THE ROMAN PONTIFF HIMSELF.

Orthodoc

P.S.  The various jurisdictions within the Eastern Rites of Rome are as divided as  the Orthodox Catholics regarding the calendar issue.  Byzantine Catholics observe the 'new calandar' while most Ukrainian Catholics still observe the 'old calendar.  So, until there is uniformity within the Eastern Rites the calendar is still an issue within your own grouping of so called SUI JURIS CHURCHES.



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.
bripat22
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


Slava Tebie, Boze nas! Slava Tebie


« Reply #75 on: November 05, 2002, 11:39:32 AM »

There is nothing I can say in response to groundless slanders. You have nothing but my prayers.

I will say



         One pertinent (or impertinent) question for you , O or D.

                 Do you ever smile or Laugh?Huh?     Roll Eyes     Grin


                                     Brian in Sacramento

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"
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #76 on: November 05, 2002, 12:02:26 PM »

I'm sure this issue has some relative  importance within Orthodoxy outside of communion with Rome but I've never heard it discussed within Orthodoxy in communion with Rome.  I wonder if the calendar issue belongs someplace else?

What do you think, Anastasios?

Dan Lauffer

Dan, I'm not Anastasios and I can't speak for him, but I find the term "Orthodox(y) in communion with Rome" out of place on this board.  You may use it on your Byzantine Forum to your heart's content, but here, IMHO, it has no place.  You may speak of "Eastern Catholic(ism) in communion with Rome" here, and no one will object, however.

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

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #77 on: November 05, 2002, 12:11:32 PM »

'Orthodoxy in communion with Rome' can offend some Orthodox and is more wishful thinking from well-meaning Byzantine Catholics than reality, but I think we all know what it means ( = Byzantine Catholicism). Just like IMO an Orthodox can call himself an Orthodox Catholic in writing if he likes, since the capitalized O makes his meaning clear.

As a copy editor I like simplicity - real elegance in writing. Which is why I stick to the common meanings of these words in capitalized form. An 'Orthodox in communion with Rome' is what most of the English-speaking world simply calls a Catholic.

And there are Catholic churches that use the Julian calendar so the issue does touch on them, even though it seems pretty noncontroversial there. IMO they rightly see it as a matter of culture (for church order or the bene esse of the Church), not of faith.

But since the calendar issue is much more important to the Orthodox, perhaps it is beyond the scope of this folder. IMO it belongs under Liturgy since that's what it's about - the chronological setup of church services and readings.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2002, 12:17:48 PM by Serge » Logged

Origen
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12



« Reply #78 on: November 05, 2002, 12:15:32 PM »

Hypo-Ortho,

Why is Orthodox in Communion with Rome an oxymoron?  Historically speaking, wasn't it Orthodox Christians who united with Rome a few centuries ago, not Eastern Catholics?  Please correct my history.

Do church names save?

Origen
« Last Edit: November 05, 2002, 12:17:27 PM by Origen » Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #79 on: November 05, 2002, 12:38:00 PM »

Hypo-Ortho,

Why is Orthodox in Communion with Rome an oxymoron?  Historically speaking, wasn't it Orthodox Christians who united with Rome a few centuries ago, not Eastern Catholics?  Please correct my history.

Do church names save?
Origen


No offense, but I would expect a Protestant troll, not someone who is either an "Eastern Catholic in communion with Rome" nor an Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Christian to ask such a question, Origen.  

Do church names save?  In and of themselves, no.  But do we, BOTH Catholics AND Orthodox, not say in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, our "Symbol of Faith," "I BELIEVE in ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH"?  For Catholics, Roman or Eastern, that means in communion with and under Rome.  For Eastern Orthodox, that means the Eastern Orthodox Church, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Origen
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12



« Reply #80 on: November 05, 2002, 12:45:51 PM »

Hypo-Ortho,

So what you are saying is that the Creed is what matters?  Then what we call ourselves outside of the Creed shouldn't really matter.

What is a Protestant troll?
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 #81 on: November 05, 2002, 12:53:53 PM »

What is a troll? Someone we shouldn't feed. God Bless!

Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Origen
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12



« Reply #82 on: November 05, 2002, 12:56:58 PM »

Nik,

Thank you.  What would happen if they are fed?

Are there any trolls that have beards?
« Last Edit: November 05, 2002, 01:22:29 PM by Origen » Logged
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 #83 on: November 05, 2002, 01:26:22 PM »

[Why is Orthodox in Communion with Rome an oxymoron?  Historically speaking, wasn't it Orthodox Christians who united with Rome a few centuries ago, not Eastern Catholics?  Please correct my history.]


Origen (or should I say Joe):

I thought I was pretty thorough in my post.  Perhaps you should reread it again.

Also, reread the history of the Unia from a more reliable source.
Your comments indicate that you have a poor comprehension of just what transpired.

But lets be completely honest.  We all know that both you and Dan are here from the Byzantine Catholic Forum to troll.  So, maybe Nik is right - DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!

Orthodoc


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.
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #84 on: November 05, 2002, 01:36:14 PM »

Orthodoxy Or Death,

I sympathize with what you say, and agree that you're not getting much in the way of "straight answers" here.  Ad hominem is the last resort of intellectual dishonesty.  Take that however you want.

The simple truth is, you have two outlooks in the Orthodox world right now; one I would characterize as "Latin-esque" minimalism ("how much can we widdle away and still remain Orthodox?"), the other a more traditional, "Orthodox maximalisim."

Obviously, you and I would be inclined to say the latter is what we should aim for, without of course committing the error of interpreting the canons like the RC's do their "canon law".  However, one need not commit this error of excess to see something wrong with the minimalist "how little can we get away with" attitude, which is really just a ploy to cover for a "get along" mentality.

Of course, we all (including "traditionalists" like us) are guilty, as are our brothers, of not living up to the "ideal", whether of the canons, or the Christian perfection which they were intended to protect.  But it does no good to pretend these norms do not exist, or that they can just be brushed off (as too many New Calendarists are inclined to do, with their cries of "how does the calendar affect my salvation?")

Speaking from my own past, I am extremely wary/suspificious of such thinking, as I know what can happen with the "widdle it down" approach; you end up with high church protestantism, which is what happened to post-Vatican II Catholicism.

Seraphim

P.S. - in short, canonicity (observance of the canons, not communion with heterodox/on-the-path-to-heterodoxy officialdom) does not equal "phariseeism", which is liberalesque name calling if I've ever seen it.
Logged

Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #85 on: November 05, 2002, 01:43:56 PM »

Well pardon me, a minimalist new calendar modernist, but frankly the staunch views of Old Calendarists along with their elitism and their arrogance is rather disgusting to me.

You honestly mean to tell me that what calendar one follows takes precendence over unity and christian love?

Call me what you want, but I believe you have your priorities backwards, and your attitudes are merely a cop-out from having charity.

Bobby
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #86 on: November 05, 2002, 01:49:38 PM »

I second Bobby’s remark, adding that not all who belong to Orthodox Churches that use the old calendar (such as the Church of Russia and ROCOR) have the offensive attitude of some (and probably not all) members of non-Orthodox old-calendar groups.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2002, 02:08:21 PM by Serge » Logged

Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #87 on: November 05, 2002, 01:58:54 PM »

Well pardon me, a minimalist new calendar modernist, but frankly the staunch views of Old Calendarists along with their elitism and their arrogance is rather disgusting to me.

You honestly mean to tell me that what calendar one follows takes precendence over unity and christian love?

Call me what you want, but I believe you have your priorities backwards, and your attitudes are merely a cop-out from having charity.

Bobby


Bobby, not to defend the elitist and arrogant brand of Old Calendarists, but *not* all those who follow the Julian Calendar are so uncharitable, lack Christian love, or are unconcerned about Orthodox unity.  The largest Orthodox Church in the world, the Orthodox Church of Russia, follows the Julian Calendar, as does the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Serbian Patriarchate.  I would not classify these Churches with the "I belong to the *only* True, Genuine (or whatever) Old Calendar Orthodox Churches in resistance to and in schism from canonical "modernist" (a Roman Catholic term) Revised Julian a/k/a New Calendar Orthodox Churches."

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
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 #88 on: November 05, 2002, 02:04:52 PM »

[Why is Orthodox in Communion with Rome an oxymoron?  Historically speaking, wasn't it Orthodox Christians who united with Rome a few centuries ago, not Eastern Catholics?  Please correct my history.]


One simple question.  About the same time those former Orthodox Catholics went into schism and left  the  original 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' for Rome, there was another group of former Roman Catholics who left Rome under the leadership of a RC priest named Martin Luther.  Today we call those people Lutheran or Protestants.  l
Later on, another group left the Roman Catholic Church with their bishops and became know as either Episcopalians or Anglicians.

Using our analogy, that one can retain their Orthodox identity while leaving the Orthodox Church, and be identified by whether they are in or out of communion with Rome - then should we not be calling these two groups, as well as all Protestants as 'Roman Catholics not in communion with Rome?

Orthodoc
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.
OrthodoxyOrDeath
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


I'm a llama!


« Reply #89 on: November 05, 2002, 02:07:26 PM »


You honestly mean to tell me that what calendar one follows takes precendence over unity and christian love?



I am not taking a position on "precedence" in this discussion. What I have merely tried to address is the difficult task of answering your original question. So far nobody has extended me the same courtesy.

Those who speak of love dare to speak of God. According to St. John the Theologian, "God is love, those who dwell in love dwell in God."

So for your above question, perhaps it is one better asked of your own leaders. Ask them, "why was it and is it still so important to be aligned with the popes calendar when it has caused so much disunity, death, discord, and disfunctionality. Why have you done what you have?


----------------

And thank you Seraphim Reeves / Nik.
Logged
David
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of the South)
Posts: 1,952


Retired GM


WWW
« Reply #90 on: November 05, 2002, 02:10:31 PM »

I might be in the minority here, but I don't think anyone can say that the "modernists" or the "traditionalists" are right.  The answer lies somewhere in the middle.  While modernism for the sake of modernism(or ecumenism) without any pastoral or liturgical reason is wrong, I would say that making a dogma out of everything from clerical facial hair to standing(seating) arrangements is also wrong.  There are serious issues that need to be realized, but I don't think Orthodoxy in America will ever deal with these problems as long as we have straw men to burn while we happily remain confident in our jurisdictionalism.

This is why the OCA needs ROCOR(and vice versa).  To help maintain the status quo of Orthodoxy without verging into extremism.  There are some things within the OCA that I consider incorrect modernism(modernism without a good reason) and there are also many in the ROCOR (mostly converts) who fulfill St. Ignatius Branchininov(sp?)'s critism of monks of the time: that they worship dried bread and peas, getting caught up in the externals but not in the reason for them(paraphrase).  

God bless you all.  The jurisdictions will soon unite or they will not.  If it is God's will, it may take 100 years for this to happen, which will be a short period in the history of the church.  I rejoice that it seems that Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox will soon come together in full communion.  My fondest wish is to see that same hope foster between the "traditional" and "mainline" jurisdictions.  O death, where is thy sting?
Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."
-Yazid Ibrahim
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 #91 on: November 05, 2002, 02:23:34 PM »


AmatorDeus:

great post!  I agree 100%

Orthodoc
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.
cparks
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20



« Reply #92 on: November 05, 2002, 03:09:20 PM »

You honestly mean to tell me that what calendar one follows takes precendence over unity and christian love?

I don't think one need be an old calendarist to find serious defects in the new calendar.  It's a hybrid that wreaks havoc on the typikon.  The reason that the Russian Church doesn't use it is that it analyzed the matter very thoroughly early in the 20th century and found it to be unworkable.  

In addition, I have a hard time considering the treatment of Orthodox faithful in Greece who opposed the change as "christian love."

Chrysostomos
Logged
theodore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 194


« Reply #93 on: November 05, 2002, 03:30:10 PM »

So for your above question, perhaps it is one better asked of your own leaders. Ask them, "why was it and is it still so important to be aligned with the popes calendar when it has caused so much disunity, death, discord, and disfunctionality. Why have you done what you have?
What makes the Julian calendar (the calendar of the pagan emperor Julius Caesar) so important to the Church?  I believe that the answer lies in the fact that it was the CIVIC, Secular calendar of the Roman Empire.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It is simply an arbitrary measurement of time which the Church adopted.  The Julian calendar was scrapped by Roman Catholic ecclesiastical (and secular) authorities upon the realization that the Julian Calendar is quite inaccurate.  The Protestant nations resisted it's adoption, but with International trade and interaction, realized the folly of sticking with an inaccurate (and different) calendar, just to spite the Pope, and they eventually adopted the Gregorian Calendar.   Look at the confusion over dates in Russian history of the 20th century.  The October Revolution actually took place in November (new calendar).   Why can't the Church adopt the civic calendar in common use.  That's what the Christians in Rome did when they adopted the Julian Calendar in the first place.  There's nothing particularly holy about it.  And for that matter, the ancient Persian Church utilized the totally different Persian calendar, while in full communion with the Church of the Greco-Roman World.  The calendar we use is just a tool for measuring time.  Should the Church also resist the evil heresy of Daylight Savings Time as as well?

Theodore
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 #94 on: November 05, 2002, 03:36:23 PM »

There are a number of logistical and logical reasons to keep the Church on the Old Calendar including that it destroys the Typikon. A number of articles on why can be found here. I mean if Jews and other other religious groups can keep their earlier religious calendars, why not us? Its not like we are against the secular world using theor own secular calendar!

As for the evil of Daylight Savings Time, personally I despise it and would wholly support a ban of it by my city, state, country or Church! ;-) :-p God Bless!
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #95 on: November 05, 2002, 03:39:57 PM »

Despise, Nik?

That's some pretty strong words! Smiley
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
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 #96 on: November 05, 2002, 03:45:10 PM »

LOL! At least I didn't anathemize it or call it a heretic! ;-) But I do think that it's in schism with my sense of time Cheesy
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
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,433


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #97 on: November 05, 2002, 03:51:33 PM »

There are a number of logistical and logical reasons to keep the Church on the Old Calendar including that it destroys the Typikon.

I've read an article about this, and I thought it was cool how the Typikon and the old calendar worked so well.  But I've always wondered, since the Typikon was made back then with the current calendar, why the Typikon just couldn't be adapted to the current calendar in use today?  Is that such an impossibility?    

I mean if Jews and other other religious groups can keep their earlier religious calendars, why not us? Its not like we are against the secular world using theor own secular calendar!

Yes, but it is too easy to forget that the calendar in use by the secular world is a Christian calendar.  It isn't 2002 because the secular world said so.  It's 2002 because that is the year since the birth of Christ.  The world is using our calendar.  If Jews and other religious groups use their own religious calendars, that is because they are required for the calculation of their feasts which wouldn't go well on a Christian calendar.  But the "secular" calendar is a Christian calendar.  Is it, then, so bad to expect/hope that Christian feasts would be in sync with a Christian calendar?  OK, maybe people don't like the new calendar, or the way it was implemented, or both.  But, like it or not, that is what we all use.  I don't think anyone here would write a check today saying it is 23 October 2002.  You'd rightly write 5 November.  So if we are already using the secular calendar (which is a Christian calendar) for everything else, why not sanctify time by using that calendar?  Christmas is 25 December on the Old Calendar and the New, but OC 25 December falls on NC 7 January?  Why not just use 25 December?  

I have yet to hear anyone satisfactorily explain why the calendar is such an integral issue.  Perhaps some of you will call me a modernist, a monophysite, or something like that, but I am trying to understand, and the "OC only" crowd hasn't convinced me.            
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
cparks
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20



« Reply #98 on: November 05, 2002, 05:14:59 PM »

I have yet to hear anyone satisfactorily explain why the calendar is such an integral issue.

The "new" calendar is actually a hybrid of the Julian and Gregorian calendars--it retains the Julian Paschalion, but switced to the Gregorian for the Menaion.  Two examples of the problems it creates are:

1) some years the Apostles' Fast disappears.
2) some feasts are connected to both the Menaion and the Paschalion.  This year, St George fell during Lent, which made many of the hymns nonsense, because they speak of having just celebrated Pascha.  

There are a host of others, but these two stick out in my mind, since they happened this year.  I don't think it's so much about today being more holy as October 23 than it is as November 5, as it is about fiddling with something centuries old that developed in a rather amazing fashion and required no "fixing."  The Paschalion and the Menaion fit together hand in glove.  You can't go arbitrarily changing dates without causing some chaos in the celebration of the services.

Chrysostomos
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #99 on: November 05, 2002, 05:56:52 PM »

Perspective, people, perspective. The rite, with the typikon, menaion, etc. exists for the bene esse of the Church - it is not of the essence. It is a learning aid, not the learning. One can adopt a calendar that accurately marks the changing of the seasons, modify the rite accordingly, and be completely orthodox. I didn't say one necessarily should, just that one can.
Logged

NDHoosier
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian Patriarchate
Posts: 75


Exiled from God's Country (North Dakota)


« Reply #100 on: November 05, 2002, 06:52:54 PM »

I've been wondering about this calendar issue...

It's said that the New Calendar destroys the integrity of the Menaion, etc.  What I'm wondering is why all those couldn't be reconciled with the New Calendar.  The only restriction on Pascha that I am aware of is that it must be after Passover.  

I'm a bit surprised that the Church adopted a pagan calendar and then rejected a Christian's revision of it (even though it be the Pope).  I sometimes wonder if resistance to the New Calendar is only because it's a "Papist Calendar".

I do agree that calendar reform should have been by consensus, and it is most unfortunate that the calendar issue is a divisive force in Orthodoxy.
Logged

There ain't a horse that can't be rode, and there ain't a rider that can't be throwed.
OrthodoxyOrDeath
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


I'm a llama!


« Reply #101 on: November 05, 2002, 10:29:20 PM »

The reason some are still honestly in question about the significance of the calendar change is because my repeated question was willfully ignored. And why?

The reason nobody dared answer my question is because they know full well only one answer would be even remotely acceptable, and that answer also happened to be the truth, and they do not like the truth.

The answer to the question of why the calendar was changed by a deposed Freemason had nothing to do with scientific accuracy, which would have been a completely useless undertaking from an ecclesiastical point of view. The real purpose of the calendar change was to move toward a union with the Western “Churches of Christ” (aka heresies). This is so evidenced by all the many other God and Christ defying tendencies of the innovators, who have since demonstrated their unequivocal hatred for anything handed to them by the Fathers.

When speaking of the last days, the prophet Daniel foretold that Antichrist will even "think to change times and laws" (Dan. 7,25).

One distinct and obvious manifestation is the ecumenist introduction of new “theological thought”. Thus we see new heretical statements of faith, contractual agreements slandering Christ, joint prayer, and disgusting displays of hypocrisy. The pile of their filth towers so high I could not even begin to illustrate it.

All of this is a denial of the Church and Christ. Those who follow these heretics, whether they realize it or not, are working against God and the overthrow of the Church. "If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican" (Mt. 18,17).

Therefore, the struggle of the traditional Orthodox Christians is as clear as the water in a mountain spring. We struggle to preserve Orthodoxy inviolate just as they received it from the Fathers and the Apostles. Like the gigantic flag hanging on the side of Esphigmenou on Mt. Athos declares to the Greek destroyers sent by “Patriarch” BartholomewGǪOrthodoxy or Death!
Logged
Aklie Semaet
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


Thank God for my fiancée!


« Reply #102 on: November 05, 2002, 10:46:10 PM »

Oh great, now the new calendarists are the anti-Christ. I wonder what conspiracy theory is next, maybe all of the Patriarchs have the mark of the beast on their head and we don’t know it?

But God Bless those Monks in Mt. AthosGǪ.
Logged

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

Posts: 15,433


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #103 on: November 05, 2002, 11:39:29 PM »

Therefore, the struggle of the traditional Orthodox Christians is as clear as the water in a mountain spring. We struggle to preserve Orthodoxy inviolate just as they received it from the Fathers and the Apostles. Like the gigantic flag hanging on the side of Esphigmenou on Mt. Athos declares to the Greek destroyers sent by “Patriarch” BartholomewGǪOrthodoxy or Death!

Dear OOD,

On a lighter note, I always wondered where you got your screen name, and now I know.  Nice!  Cool
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Dan Lauffer
Athanasios
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 188



« Reply #104 on: November 05, 2002, 11:56:19 PM »

Hypo Orthodox,

"Dan, I'm not Anastasios and I can't speak for him, but I find the term "Orthodox(y) in communion with Rome" out of place on this board.  You may use it on your Byzantine Forum to your heart's content, but here, IMHO, it has no place.  You may speak of "Eastern Catholic(ism) in communion with Rome" here, and no one will object, however."

Your comment is ludicrous.  The name of this forum is Orthodox-Catholic (in communion with Rome).  I don't really care how you think we ought to be defined.  I don't limit your definition of yourself and I don't care what you think of how we define ourselves.

Dan Lauffer



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

Posts: 188



« Reply #105 on: November 06, 2002, 12:00:10 AM »

Orthodoc,

"But lets be completely honest.  We all know that both you and Dan are here from the Byzantine Catholic Forum to troll.  So, maybe Nik is right - DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!"

Rubbish!  Your comments only reflect that you are a snide know it all.  I am here because this section of the forum is titled "Orthodox-Catholic in communion with Rome.  That is what I am.  You are the troll here.

Dan Lauffer

Logged
Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #106 on: November 06, 2002, 12:42:05 AM »

Lets chill with the irrelevant comments and keep the discussion on topic.

Dan I think an apology is necessary to Orthoman, that was quite an rude remark to make, especially publically.

and Orthoman I think an apology is necessary to Dan for calling him a troll.

Thanks,

Bobby
« Last Edit: November 06, 2002, 12:44:52 AM by Bobby » Logged
Dan Lauffer
Athanasios
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 188



« Reply #107 on: November 06, 2002, 08:57:44 AM »

Bobby,

I would never argue with a lady.  Hence I will follow your instruction.  

Orthodoc, I apologize for calling you a troll.  However, I'm serious in my intention to speak as clearly as I can about the blessings of be Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

Dan Lauffer
Logged
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 #108 on: November 06, 2002, 10:27:46 AM »

[Your comment is ludicrous.  The name of this forum is Orthodox-Catholic (in communion with Rome).  I don't really care how you think we ought to be defined.  I don't limit your definition of yourself and I don't care what you think of how we define ourselves.]

And, based on that, why should we care what you think about us referring to you as a Uniate?

Orthodoc



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.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #109 on: November 06, 2002, 10:31:28 AM »


And, based on that, why should we care what you think about us referring to you as a Uniate?

Orthodoc


Oh, I don't know.  Maybe civility?  Maybe basic respect?  Maybe charity?  

This whole name calling thing is ridiculous to begin with.  For starters, this is the bloody Internet.  Nothing like a little anonymity to give people the courage to do things they wouldn't do face-to-face.  Computers are great things to hide behind.  And secondly, this is supposed to be a Christian forum.  Argue all you want about theology, but to stoop to name calling makes our Lord weep.  Maybe that's why it was raining here yesterday afternoon...
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Dan Lauffer
Athanasios
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 188



« Reply #110 on: November 06, 2002, 10:33:21 AM »

Orthodoc,

"And, based on that, why should we care what you think about us referring to you as a Uniate?"

I don't.  I just consider the source.  Call us "sewer rats" if it makes you happy.  Calling names does not enhance understanding nor does it advance the truth.  If it makes you happy call us what you wish.  It means nothing to me.  

This section is reserved for Orthodox-Catholic in communion with Rome.  If you don't like it, don't post on this section.

Dan Lauffer



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

Posts: 188



« Reply #111 on: November 06, 2002, 10:41:04 AM »

Schultz,

Right you are.  Threads degenerate once their purpose is lost.  I wonder if it's time to close this one?  

Dan Lauffer
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #112 on: November 06, 2002, 11:02:02 AM »

Schultz,

Right you are.  Threads degenerate once their purpose is lost.  I wonder if it's time to close this one?  

Dan Lauffer

Dan, is THAT your purpose for posting on this thread that is dedicated to civil dialogue to promote understanding in Christian charity between [Eastern and Oriental] "Orthodox" Christians AND [Roman/Eastern] "Catholics in communion with Rome"? To be the one to suggest closing it?  

What you are interpreting as a hyphen in the title of this thread between "Orthodox" and "Catholic in communion with Rome" is not a hyphen: it is a dash.  Two distinct groups, i.e., one simply "Orthodox" and the other simply "Catholic in communion with Rome."  "Orthodox-Catholic in communion with Rome" is *NOT* the title of this thread.  We've gone over this quite thoroughly on this thread before you started posting here and arrived at a peaceful agreement.  Rome is not "orthodox" big "O."  So to be in communion with Rome cannot be "orthodox" big "O" from our perspective.  Please don't try to proselytize us to the contrary with your "Orthodox in communion with Rome" agenda.  However, if you want to use the small "o" in reference to yourself, I don't think many here would object.

Hypo-Ortho
« Last Edit: November 06, 2002, 11:45:29 AM by Hypo-Ortho » Logged
moronikos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ...and they were first called Christians in Antioch
Posts: 150


I'm trying to think, but nothing happens!


WWW
« Reply #113 on: November 06, 2002, 11:04:03 AM »

I thought the purpose of this forum was to discuss relations between:

1.  Orthodox Christians
2.  Catholics in communion with Rome


I've never thought that Dan was a troll.  He is a Catholic, but a nice one.

From what I know, Dan likes to refer to himself as "Orthodox in communion with Rome".  Some of us may find that descriptor to be an oxymoron, but it's no excuse for bad behavior.  If that's how he wants to refer to himself, why make a big deal out of it.  Be courteous.

Moronikos
Orthodox in communion with Antioch
Logged
Origen
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12



« Reply #114 on: November 06, 2002, 11:16:00 AM »

//Origen (or should I say Joe):

D*mn!  Must have been the fake beard that gave me away! Cool

//But lets be completely honest.  We all know that both you and Dan are here from the Byzantine Catholic Forum to troll.  So, maybe Nik is right - DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!

Personally, I come on my own.  I don't represent byzcath.org.  Why would you imply such a thing if you wish to be honest?  I agree with Dan.  This, I thought, is an Orthodox-Catholic Discussion board.  For you and others to refer to Byzantine Catholics as "trolls" is pretty disturbing.  What people call themselves is one thing; what they are called by others is another.  I have learned a lot here in only a short time.

Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #115 on: November 06, 2002, 11:30:17 AM »

Dan Lauffer is certainly not a troll, but an idealistic small-o orthodox who is trying to be as Orthodox as possible in a Rome-centric Catholic system. Orthodoc and I fight over church labels but he's no troll either.
Logged

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 #116 on: November 06, 2002, 12:23:22 PM »

Schultz:

From your last name I am assuming that you are neither what is called a 'cradle Orthodox' nor from a slavic back ground.  If I have this wrong I apologize to you.

To those of us who are Orthodox Catholic and from a slavic (some times Eastern Catholic) background these issues are much more than name calling.  In fact, they are sore spots because of the pain and confusion they inflicted upon our ancestors.

The whole formation of the Unia (Eastern Catholic Church) was initiated on our ancestors by the Roman Catholic Church and based on pressure, politics, and  deception.
Read the 33 articles of the  'Union of Brest' to see what life was like for our ancestors as Orthodox Catholics under Roman Catholic rule.  As such, they were not allowed to bring the Sacraments to the sick and dying,  ring the church bells
on Good Friday, hold processions during Holy Days. their monasteries and churches were being forcibly changed into Latin Rite RC,  they had taxation without  representation in the Senate ( See Article 12).  I could go on but you can read the entire document at -

http://www.archeparchy.ca/history/union_of_brest.htm#33

This will give you an idea of what life was like for them IN THEIR OWN LANDS  under Roman Catholic rule.  And give you a better idea why they signed the union with Rome which certainly wasn't for either theological or doctrinal reasons.

Since this document was signed in the 16th century and people were still basically illerate, the premise was that as long as everything looked the same and sounded the same the average peasant would never know that they were in fact no longer Orthodox but had become part of the Roman Catholic Church. Because they based everything on what they saw and heard when they attended Church. The word 'Pravoslavnie' (Orthodox) was still retained in the Liturgy.  But its meaning was changed by the now Eastern Catholic Church to justify its usage.  The goal was to gradually latinize them until they had become full fledged Latin Roman Catholics.  When the people questioned any slight change such as the  the commemoration of the Pope, etc. they were in many instances actually told that the Pope had become Orthodox!  That they were 'Orthodox In Communion with Rome' (rather than under its authority since the Pope was now Orthodox).  This included my own grandparents who came here as 'Greek Catholics'.  Many of the founders of my former parish and my present  parish came here at the turn of the century having no idea that they were not 'Pravoslavnie'  (Orthodox) but in fact, part of the Roman Catholic Church.  They were devoted to the Orthodox Catholic Church while not being part of it.  Others were aware of what had transpired but did not have the freedom to return to the Orthodox faith while still in europe (this included my grandparents).
 
Look how many of the Byzantine Catholics and Ukrainian Catholics here and else where react when you refer to them as part of the Roman Catholic Church or under the authority of Rome. or a Rite wthin the Papal Catholic Church structure. They deny it because they have bought the deception hook, line, and sinker.  Phrases like 'in communion with' rather than 'under the authority of', Sui Juris instead of  'Byzantine Rite of the Papal Catholic Church'.  After 400+ years they are still searching for an identity.  In just my life time alone they have gone from 'Greek Catholic', to either 'Byzantine Catholic' or 'Ukrainian Catholic' depending on the ethnic identity they adhered to, and now back to 'Orthodox in communion with Rome'.  

Words are VERY IMPORTANT because they can be used to manipulate and deceive Schultz.  And thats why so many of us from a particular background will  challenge anyone who uses many of those same identities today.  This includes the terms "Orthodox In Communion With Rome' and giving the Roman Catholic Church exclusive rights to the word 'Catholic'.

I notice that whenever this type of  issue comes up it is shrugged off as 'name calling'.  Usually by those who don't have the emotional connection to the history behind it.  Dan is well aware of the reaction that 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome' gets from some of us.  Yet he goes out of his way to use it.  You will notice that he never answers my questions except for insulting replies.  This latest one is mild compared to the private one he sent me through the Byzantine (Catholic) Forum which was my reason for leaving that forum.  Names that my mother would have washed my mouth out with soap for. And he used a Christian forum to send them to me.

I don't mean to start a feud here.  But felt I had to explain to some why this issue is a lot more than name calling.

If I have offended you by addresing this to you personally, I apologize.  I am just using your post as a way to try and explain the real issues behind this series of posts.

If we are to discuss Orthodox /Catholic (In communion with Rome) issues then we should be be prepared to discuss not only the theological, and dogmatic issues that separate us, but the emotional things as well.


Orthodoc
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.
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 #117 on: November 06, 2002, 12:44:44 PM »

[D*mn! Must have been the fake beard that gave me away! ]

Nah!  We all have our own style of writing.  You are no exception.  Actually it was a wild guess that turned out to be right on!

[Personally, I come on my own. I don't represent byzcath.org. Why would you imply such a thing if you wish to be honest?]

I don't remember implying that you represent the byzcath.org.  Just that you are a member and a poster there.

[This, I thought, is an Orthodox-Catholic Discussion board. For you and others to refer to Byzantine Catholics as "trolls" is pretty disturbing.]

Tha'ts kind of stretching a point, isn't it?  I don't think either I or anyone else referred to ALL Byzantine Catholics as trolls.  If that's the way you took it than I apologize.

[I have learned a lot here in only a short time.]

GOOD!  And on that note let me personally offer you a warm welcome.

Orthodoc
   
   
   
   



   
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.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #118 on: November 06, 2002, 12:55:41 PM »

Orthodoc,

I understand the issues between the Unia and the Orthodox.  I know how hot blood can boil.  However, we as Christians are called to rise above this.  Of course, we can and do fail in this regard and fail quite often, especially when we have the protection of cyberspace and the semi-anonymity of the internet.  

I am not trying to downplay the importance of our particular ethnic traditions nor the history of strife between the Orthodox and the Catholics, especially of Slavic backgrounds.  I am trying to remind us all
(myself included) that we are emulate Christ in all things.  It is quite easy to toss words around when you don't have to look at the person one is directing them at.  It is very similar to road rage, where we have the protection of our two-ton automobiles and feel safe enough to flip the bird, wave our fists, and scream our heads off.  If we're not careful, we lose our sense of reality and in far too many occasions people lose their heads and actually follow up on their threats, causing physical harm to someone who may have inadvertently cut them off.

We are here in this particular forum to discuss Orthodox - Catholic relations.  This is an issue that can easily degenerate into name calling, particularly because it involves such a turgid history for those of Slavic backgrounds.  

We must resist the temptation to say, "Well, I don't give a rat's rearend what you have to say because you're just a Uniate" and stay clear of the urge to shout back, "Well, you're just a blind fool who can't see that union with Rome is what God wants."  We are all Christians here and should act as much, even if we feel and know that one side does not have the fullness of the Faith.  We all still look to Christ as our model, as our teacher and as our God.  

The next time we find ourselves immediately reacting to a post and typing a reply without much thought, STOP.  Ask yourself "Is this how Christ would respond?".  We must remember that we, both Orthodox and Catholic, are not trying to stop Christ, as did the Pharisees and Sadducess, that "brood of vipers".  We are all trying to follow Him as best we can.  

Should we discuss the best way to do that?  Of course!  But we should not, for ANY reason, play the blame game with people who weren't around when the original game was played.

And no, I'm not of Slavic background.  And before you ask, I'm a Latin Catholic who has recently discovered Eastern Christianity and am studying it intently.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
abdur
Guest
« Reply #119 on: November 06, 2002, 01:59:00 PM »

Orthodoc,

"But lets be completely honest.  We all know that both you and Dan are here from the Byzantine Catholic Forum to troll.  So, maybe Nik is right - DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!"

Rubbish!  Your comments only reflect that you are a snide know it all.  I am here because this section of the forum is titled "Orthodox-Catholic in communion with Rome.  That is what I am.  You are the troll here.

Dan Lauffer



"Orthodox in Communion in Rome" is as offensive to ethnic Orthodox as the expression "Apostate Orthodox in Communion with the Grand Crusader" would be to you.

Btw: When do the BC hierarchs plan on changing the parish titles from 'Byzantine Catholic' to 'Orthodox in Communion with Rome?'

Abdur
« Last Edit: November 06, 2002, 02:02:49 PM by abdur » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,433


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #120 on: November 06, 2002, 02:24:03 PM »

OK.  I don't want this thread closed, but there are some unpleasant things that I want stopped.

However, I'm serious in my intention to speak as clearly as I can about the blessings of be Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

Dan is welcome to speak about his experience as an Eastern Catholic, especially in this folder that deals with Orthodox/Catholic relations.  But, in line with the terms I laid down as normative on this site, "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" is not appropriate.  So I'm only asking one thing of Dan here, and that is to use "Eastern Catholic", "Byzantine Catholic", or something like that when speaking of the Eastern Churches recognising the authority of Rome.  

And, based on that, why should we care what you think about us referring to you as a Uniate?

I also want to remind Orthodoc that, in line with those same guidelines I mentioned above, "Uniate" is not appropriate and should not be used.  

Oh, I don't know.  Maybe civility?  Maybe basic respect?  Maybe charity?  

This whole name calling thing is ridiculous to begin with.  For starters, this is the bloody Internet.  Nothing like a little anonymity to give people the courage to do things they wouldn't do face-to-face.  Computers are great things to hide behind.  And secondly, this is supposed to be a Christian forum.  Argue all you want about theology, but to stoop to name calling makes our Lord weep.


Schultz is right.  To stoop to name-calling and things of that sort is no big deal on the internet, since it is anonymous.  But what does that say about the name-caller?  Surely our Lord cannot be pleased at this sort of thing.  Whatever the differences between Orthodox and Catholics, we are brothers in Christ.  Why don't we start acting like it?

To those of us who are Orthodox Catholic and from a slavic (some times Eastern Catholic) background these issues are much more than name calling.  In fact, they are sore spots because of the pain and confusion they inflicted upon our ancestors.

As Christians, we are called to overcome these feelings.  Yes, we know the historical circumstances behind these things, and they were wrong.  They were as wrong in the Slavic lands as they were in Ethiopia, India, and elsewhere.  But we cannot bear grudges and treat each other without love because of these things.  How dare we raise our hands and pray in the Lord's Prayer washbuq lan hawbayn wahtohayn aykano doph hnan shbaqan l-hayobayn (Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us) and then start doing things like this.  How can we ask God's forgiveness for our debts if we haven't already asked for the forgiveness of those against whom we have sinned (which is the clear meaning of the original Syriac the Lord spoke), or in this case freely forgiven those who have offended us?  The name-calling, in spite of the historical circumstances, is symptomatic of a larger problem in our souls, an unwillingness to forgive and to love, even to love our enemies.  So it seems to me.  

May we pray for those who have offended us, past or present, forgive them, and love them as did the Lord, Who could've called down twelve legions of Angels to smite those who would kill Him, but instead prayed for their forgiveness, and even made excuses for them.

Finally, Schultz's last post (today at 11:55am) is full of Christian wisdom, and I hope everyone reads it, takes it to heart, and acts accordingly, on this board and in real life.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #121 on: November 06, 2002, 02:28:16 PM »

Oh, brother, Abdur.  I can see it already:

"The Immaculate Conception Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Orthodox-in-communion-with Rome Cathedral" in Philly, or "The Infant of Prague Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Orthodox-in-communion-with Rome Church" or "The Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary Greek-Catholic Orthodox-in-communion-with Rome Church," or in St. Petersburg, FL, "St. Therese Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Orthodox-in-communion-with-Rome Church."  What a mouthful!   Wink  And just as bad a mouthful as the Johnstown-based "American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek-Catholic Diocese of the USA, Ecumenical Patriarchate" (ACROD)!

Hypo-Ortho

Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #122 on: November 06, 2002, 02:32:19 PM »

My dear brother Mor Ephrem,

You flatter me far above what I deserve.  But thank you for your kind words Smiley.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2002, 02:40:29 PM by Schultz » Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #123 on: November 06, 2002, 02:55:01 PM »

Oh, brother, Abdur.  I can see it already:

"The Immaculate Conception Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Orthodox-in-communion-with Rome Cathedral" in Philly, or "The Infant of Prague Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Orthodox-in-communion-with Rome Church" or "The Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary Greek-Catholic Orthodox-in-communion-with Rome Church," or in St. Petersburg, FL, "St. Therese Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Orthodox-in-communion-with-Rome Church."  What a mouthful!   Wink  And just as bad a mouthful as the Johnstown-based "American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek-Catholic Diocese of the USA, Ecumenical Patriarchate" (ACROD)!

Hypo-Ortho

It may be too late to do it or logistically impossible, but perhaps a better title for this thread (to forestall future misunderstandings) would be "Eastern/Oriental Orthodox AND Roman/Eastern Catholic Discussion."  Drop the hyphen we presently have and either make it a clear "dash" or substitute it with the conjunction "and."  Just a suggestion.

And, oh yeah, I second Mor's praise of Schultz's reasoned post.

Hypo-Ortho
« Last Edit: November 06, 2002, 03:44:09 PM by Hypo-Ortho » Logged
Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #124 on: November 06, 2002, 03:02:35 PM »

Hey Hypo-Ortho,

Do you mean the title of this Forum or the title of this particular Thread.

pax,

bobby
Logged
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 #125 on: November 06, 2002, 03:19:48 PM »

As I type this the indicators have recorded 1632 VIEWS of this particular thread and still climbing.  Which indicates, that in spite of the emotions and controversary, it is the most viewed topic since the site was resurrected.

It may seem like petty to some, but it is obviously important and interesting to others.

I have also noted, that true to forum, the replies can be divided into two catagories -

(1) Cradle Orthodox Catholic with a slavic backgrounds where the Eastern Catholic Church was enforced

(2) Non slavic or convert Ortodox Catholics with no ties to old world controversaries or history.

It's about what I expected.

Orthodoc

« Last Edit: November 06, 2002, 03:23:36 PM by Orthodoc » 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.
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #126 on: November 06, 2002, 03:22:53 PM »

Hey Hypo-Ortho,

Do you mean the title of this Forum or the title of this particular Thread.

pax,

bobby

Just this particular thread, Bobby.  The title of this Forum, OrthodoxChristianity.net, is very clear to most people of good will and should *not* be changed under any circumstances.

Hypo-Ortho
« Last Edit: November 06, 2002, 03:28:42 PM by Hypo-Ortho » Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #127 on: November 06, 2002, 03:26:19 PM »

I hate this word game - please make this folder 'Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue'. The plain meanings of these capitalized words are clear enough.
Logged

Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #128 on: November 06, 2002, 03:35:24 PM »

I hate this word game - please make this folder 'Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue'. The plain meanings of these capitalized words are clear enough.

I hate the game-playing semantics too, Serge.  The plain meanings may be clear to you and me, but it would appear that some may want to obfuscate what we both clearly understand to promote their own agenda.  Hopefully, that is at an end.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
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 #129 on: November 06, 2002, 03:36:11 PM »



Since some Catholics in communion with Rome have a hard time with either the term ROMAN Catholic or PAPAL Catholic, lets leave it the way it is.


Orthodoc
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.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,433


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #130 on: November 06, 2002, 04:49:55 PM »

I have also noted, that true to forum, the replies can be divided into two catagories -

(1) Cradle Orthodox Catholic with a slavic backgrounds where the Eastern Catholic Church was enforced

(2) Non slavic or convert Ortodox Catholics with no ties to old world controversaries or history.

It's about what I expected.

I hope you are not suggesting by way of your categorisation that the people who don't seem to see things your way are those who are non-Slavic, as if you have to be a Slav to understand these things.  

There are people like me who know what the RCC was/is capable of, based on their history in our country even to the present day, but rather than focus our efforts on attacking our brothers, we'd rather try to forgive and move along, and correct when necessary, in imitation of the Lord.

I've noticed when people bring up the topic of a Ukrainian Church independent of the MP, you are quick to note that nationalism should not come before the Gospel, and you are right.  But here you seem precisely to be making this an ethnic issue, rather than an issue fundamentally related to how we apply the Gospel of Christ in our lives.  I cannot see how name-calling or other such displays of a lack of charity help one grow spiritually.  Slav or non-Slav, all are called to love all people with Christian love, even our enemies.  Slav or non-Slav, all are called to forgive freely in imitation of Christ.    

Or do Slavs have a dispensation from living the Gospel of Christ?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
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 #131 on: November 06, 2002, 05:50:09 PM »

[I hope you are not suggesting by way of your categorisation that the people who don't seem to see things your way are those who are non-Slavic, as if you have to be a Slav to understand these things.]

Thats not what I am saying at all.  What I am saying is that it is basically an emotional issue based on one's background.  And remains as such even today.  As recent as 50 some years ago, and even today, families have split because of this issue.  What I call the 'Roman Catholic'  word game has led to confusion regarding one's religious identity amongst certain slavic groups.  The results have been  disastrous to many families including my own.  I know of many families that were broken up over this issue and remain so even today.  My grandfather and  his brother lived in the same small town for over 60 years and never spoke over this issue.

[But here you seem precisely to be making this an ethnic issue, rather than an issue fundamentally related to how we apply the Gospel of Christ in our lives.]

Where am I making it an ethnic issue?   Once again, I am saying it is an emotional issue and based on ones personal experiences.   Its ethnic only in the sense it  applies to certain areas of eastern europe where the 'Eastern Catholic Church' was created to proseltyze against the Orthodox Catholics.

 [I cannot see how name-calling or other such displays of a lack of charity help one grow spiritually.]

Neither can I.  But I'm not the one that  came in here and purposely used a term that I knew would offend and incite people.

I used the term Uniate to give  as an example of how offensive a word or term can be to a person who was being offensive by putting the shoe on that persons foot as the saying goes.

I am glad that you have banned the term 'Orthodox in communion with Rome'.  I am equally glad you have also banned the term Uniate.
 
Orthodoc   
   
   
   

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.
Dan Lauffer
Athanasios
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 188



« Reply #132 on: November 06, 2002, 05:52:11 PM »

Abdur,

I may be only idealistic, as Serge suggests.  I've been known to be worse.  Yet, what is the point of prolonging internicene warfare?  For that matter, since I did not fight in the Crusades, you can call the Catholic Church anything you wish as far as I'm concerned.  One must remember, though, it was the East who begged for the West to come and saved them from the Muslims.  1203 should not have happened.  Was the trashing of Agia Sophia directed by the Pope?

"Orthodox in Communion in Rome" is as offensive to ethnic Orthodox as the expression "Apostate Orthodox in Communion with the Grand Crusader" would be to you.

Btw: When do the BC hierarchs plan on changing the parish titles from 'Byzantine Catholic' to 'Orthodox in Communion with Rome?"

I've been wondering when this was going to happen for a long long time.  It may be courtesy to the Orthodox not in communion with Rome that they have not done this.  I simply don't know.  

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

Posts: 188



« Reply #133 on: November 06, 2002, 05:58:22 PM »

Mor Ephrem,

I will follow your suggestion, though I do not believe it does justice to our parish nor to our archeparchy.  I am Eastern Catholic, if it will stop the fussing.

Dan Lauffer
Logged
anEasternCatholic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13



« Reply #134 on: November 06, 2002, 07:37:41 PM »

W W J D --

What Would Jesus Do?

Well, gee wiz, He loves us all.   So let's follow His example and pretend to get along.  If we were all sitting in the same room, I bet everyone would try to be polite -- especially if Our Lord was sitting at the head of the table!! Cheesy
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 0.351 seconds with 162 queries.