OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 27, 2014, 12:32:22 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 25413 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 10,487


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

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,234


that is not the teaching of...


« 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

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
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: 10,487


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

Please Buy My Book!

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

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


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #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

Please Buy My Book!

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

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


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #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

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
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: 2,798


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: 2,798


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: 2,798


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
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 0.15 seconds with 72 queries.